Y APRAK KISMET OKUR OKUR KISMET APRAK

PHOENICIANS IN CILICIA DURING THE MIDDLE IRON AGE:

PHOENICIANS IN CIL IN PHOENICIANS THE SCOPE OF THEIR PRESENCE

A Master's Thesis

by I CIA YAPRAK KISMET OKUR

DURING THE MIDDLE IRON MIDDLE THE DURING

Department of Archaeology

AGE İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University Ankara June 2020 Bilken t University 2020 University t

To İpek and Ergün

PHOENICIANS IN CILICIA DURING THE MIDDLE IRON AGE: THE SCOPE OF THEIR PRESENCE

The Graduate School of Economics and Social Sciences of İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University

by

YAPRAK KISMET OKUR

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS

THE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY İHSAN DOĞRAMACI BİLKENT UNIVERSITY ANKARA

June 2020

I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in Archaeology.

------Assoc. Prof. Dr. Marie-Henriette Gates Supervisor

I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in Archaeology.

------Asst. Prof. Dr. Charles Gates Examining Committee Member

I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in Archaeology.

------Prof. Dr. Gunnar Lehmann Examining Committee Member

Approval of the Graduate School of Economics and Social Sciences

------Prof. Dr. Halime Demirkan. Director

ABSTRACT

PHOENICIANS IN CILICIA DURING THE MIDDLE IRON AGE: THE SCOPE OF THEIR PRESENCE

Kısmet Okur, Yaprak M.A., Department of Archaeology

Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Marie-Henriette Gates

June 2020

This thesis is a study on the use of Phoenician language for the monumental inscriptions which were set up in Plain Cilicia, and dated to the mid 8th c. BC. This thesis aims to assess the hypothesis that Phoenician, as the "trade language" of the eastern Mediterranean and the ancient Near East, became the lingua franca of the period, for the settlements in Plain Cilicia. In order to follow this hypothesis, the political structure and trade network of the period are presented. On the one hand, by proposing what motivated the local rulers in using Phoenician as the second written language, and on the other hand, based on the analysis of the archaeological and historical evidence, this thesis also questions the interest and the presence of the

Phoenicians in Cilicia during the Middle Iron Age.

Keywords: Eastern Mediterranean, Inscription, Iron Age Cilicia, Phoenicians, Trade.

iii ÖZET

ORTA DEMİR ÇAĞI'NDA KİLİKYA'DA FENİKELİLER: VARLIĞININ İZLERİ

Kısmet Okur, Yaprak Yüksek Lisans, Arkeoloji Bölümü

Tez Danışmanı: Doç. Dr. Marie-Henriette Gates

Haziran 2020

Bu tez Ovalık Kilikya'da dikilen ve MÖ 8. yy. ortalarına tarihlenen anıt yazıtlarda

Fenike dilinin kullanılması üzerine yapılan bir çalışmadır. Bu tezin amacı Fenike dilinin Akdeniz'in doğusunda ve Yakın Doğu'da "ticaret dili" olarak kullanılmasından dolayı söz konusu dönemin "ortak iletişim dili" olarak benimsendiği hipotezini Ovalık Kilikya'da bulunan yerleşimler için değerlendirmektir. Bu hipotezi takip etmek için, dönemin politik yapısı ve ticaret ağı ortaya konmuştur. Tez, yerel yöneticilerin ikinci yazılı dili olarak Fenike dilini kullanmalarında kendilerini motive eden unsurları önerirken; aynı zamanda, arkeolojik ve tarihsel kanıtlara dayanarak, Orta Demir Çağı'nda Fenikelilerin

Kilikya'ya olan ilgilerini ve Kilikya'daki varlıklarını da sorgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Demir Çağı Kilikyası, Doğu Akdeniz, Fenikeliler, Ticaret, Yazıt.

iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis would not have been possible without the efforts, contributions and blessings of the following people, to whom I'm deeply grateful:

My thesis supervisor Mrs. Marie-Henriette Gates, for her generous teaching and most assiduous guidance. She's a gem of a teacher; it has been a joy to learn from her and a privilege to have had her perpetual support and guidance.

Mr. Charles Gates and Mr. Gunnar Lehmann, for their valuable insights and helpful reading recommendations. Presenting my thesis to a jury with so many members to look up to was a challenging yet a remarkably gratifying experience to be cherished for long.

Mrs. Dominique Kassab Tezgör, Mr. Julian Bennett, Mr. Jacques Morin and Mr.

Thomas Zimmermann, for their dedicated teaching of skills and knowledge to such an extent as to make a thesis in Archaeology possible for a former economist. Mrs.

Tezgör, head of the Department, for creating such a peaceful study environment.

My fellow students at Bilkent University, for their friendship and the joy they have given me. Mrs. Pınar Aparı Çelik and Mrs. Bilge Kat Biancofiore, for their assistance in the library. My father Şükrü Kısmet, for his everlasting love, support and encouragement.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... iii

ÖZET ...... iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... vi

LIST OF FIGURES ...... ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1

CHAPTER 2: ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF PLAIN CILICIA IN THE MIDDLE IRON AGE ...... 7

2.1. Surveys and Excavations ...... 8

2.2. Archaeological Evidence from the Excavated Sites ...... 8

2.2.1. Pottery ...... 8

2.2.1.1. Sirkeli Höyük ...... 9

2.2.1.2. Karatepe ...... 11

2.2.1.3. Kinet Höyük ...... 12

2.2.1.4. Tepebağ Höyük ...... 13

2.2.1.5. Yumuktepe ...... 14

2.2.1.6. Tarsus-Gözlükule ...... 14

2.2.1.7. Misis ...... 15

2.2.2. Phoenician Amphorae ...... 15

2.2.3. Burial Places/ Necropoli ...... 16

2.2.4. Sanctuaries ...... 16

vi 2.2.5. Inscriptions ...... 17

2.2.5.1. Monumental Phoenician Inscriptions ...... 17

2.2.5.2. Other Phoenician Inscriptions ...... 18

2.2.6. Reliefs ...... 19

2.3. Evaluation of Plain Cilicia: Potential Factors Attracting Phoenician Interest in the Area ...... 22

2.3.1. Metal Ores ...... 23

2.3.1.1. Silver ...... 25

2.3.1.2. Iron ...... 27

2.3.2. Natron ...... 28

2.3.3. Salt ...... 30

2.3.4. Wood/Timber ...... 31

2.3.5. Plants ...... 33

2.3.6. Wool ...... 34

2.3.7. Ivory ...... 35

CHAPTER 3: A HISTORICAL EVALUATION OF PLAIN CILICIA IN THE MIDDLE IRON AGE ...... 38

3.1. The Presence of Assyrians in Cilicia ...... 39

3.1.1. The Northwestern Front ...... 40

3.1.2. The Western Front ...... 43

3.2. The Presence of Greeks in Cilicia ...... 46

3.3. Phoenicians in Cilicia and in their larger eastern Mediterranean Context ...... 56

vii CHAPTER 4: MEDITERRANEAN: ON ITS OWN AND OTHERS AS CONNECTORS ...... 66

4.1. Maritime Trade ...... 66

4.2. Harbors ...... 69

4.3. Connectivity and Transculturality ...... 72

4.4. Inland Trade Network and the Kāru System ...... 73

4.5. Trade, Cultural Contacts and the Spread of Language ...... 79

4.6. Dating Discussion of the Inscriptions in Cilicia ...... 86

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ...... 91

REFERENCES ...... 98

FIGURES ...... 112

viii LIST OF FIGURES

1. Map of Plain Cilicia with the Archaeological Sites and Phoenician Inscriptions Mentioned in the Text (adapted from Wikimedia Commons) ...... 112

2. Phoenician Inscription on Stone Slabs at the North Gate of Karatepe (Çambel & Özyar, 2003: Table 46, 47, 48, 49 ...... 113

3. The Monument of Storm God Tarhunza at Çineköy, with Phoenician Inscription (Wikimedia Commons) ...... 114

4. Side View of the Basalt Portal Sphinx at Karatepe-Aslantaş (Çambel & Özyar, 2003: Table 35) ...... 115

5. Human-headed Ivory Sphinx from Arslan Tash (Fontan, 2014: 155, fig. 51d) ...... 115

6. Map of Cilician Road System with a Focus on Plain Cilicia (adapted from Forlanini, 2013: 2, fig. 1) ...... 116

7. Bronze-Iron Age Harbors of the East Mediterranean (Knapp & Demesticha, 2017: xvi, map 1c) ...... 117

8. Map of Assyrian Kāru Network (Yamada, 2005: 76) ...... 118

9. Map of Phoenician and Aramaic Inscriptions from the 9th to the 7th Century B.C. (Röllig, 1992: 99, fig.12) ...... 119

ix

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Language has been one of the subjects which attracted and still continues to attract attention of many scholars from a diverse range of disciplines: philosophy, psychology, politics, economics, sociology, anthropology, literature, and archaeology. The importance of languages in archaeology, especially the impact of the decipherment of the ancient languages to the development of archaeology is very well known. Archaeologists benefit from the ancient languages in two ways: On the one hand, by reading and translating the ancient texts they try to enlighten the periods in question. On the other hand, by studying linguistically different languages, they try to understand the relationship of the language families and thus, the relationship of different cultures.

Taking into account the importance given to "language" by so many different disciplines, the concentration of monumental inscriptions that were written in Phoenician in Middle

Iron Age Cilicia is remarkable. The inscriptions from Karatepe-Aslantaş, Çineköy, and

İvriz are bilingual, Luwian and Phoenician, while the Hasanbeyli and Cebelireis Dağı inscriptions are monolingual and Phoenician, and the inscription from İncirli is trilingual,

Luwian, Phoenician and Akkadian. We should add to this group of inscriptions the

1 Phoenician inscription on the Kulamuwa Stele from Zincirli, despite the difference of its historical context.

Since their discovery, different scholars studied these inscriptions. Their main focus was on the linguistic aspect of these monumental inscriptions. They tried to provide the most correct translation and interpretation of the texts, and subsequently the correct dating of them. Or, they used this archaeological evidence for explaining the spread of alphabetic script to the west. Unfortunately, this concentration of Phoenician inscriptions outside its homeland, despite the absence of a Phoenician colony did not get as much attention as it deserved. Most of the scholars accepted the Phoenician language as an "elite language" and concentrated on the aforementioned topics.

The aim of this thesis is to reveal the motivations of the local rulers in Cilicia for the use of the Phoenician language on these monumental inscriptions. All the studies reveal that language is more than a communication tool. There is an embedded relationship between language and power. As stated by C. Kramsch, a community's language is "a symbolic capital that serves to perpetuate the relationships of power and dominance" (Kramsch,

1998: 10). Within this framework, relating the use of Phoenician just to its being an "elite language" would be an oversimplified approach. On the other hand, stating Phoenician as the new lingua franca of the period and not discussing the circumstances for its emergence as a new lingua franca might be the continuation of this oversimplified approach.

Taking into consideration this relationship between language and power, this thesis also aims to review the factors initiating the spread of the Phoenician language. According to my point of view, the motivations for the spread of languages in ancient civilizations were

2 the same as today. Close contacts (political /military/ economic/ social) appear to be the primary reasons of the introduction of new languages within a given civilization. In addition to them, an emulation/historical claim is another important factor in choosing a language, as outlined further below.

As an example for the spread of a language as a result of contacts, especially commercial contacts, the introduction of the cuneiform script to Anatolia can be considered. Due to the necessity of a common notation system during the trade contacts with Assyrian merchants, we observe the continuity of Assyrians' local traditions in Anatolia. We can depict the same pattern in the increasing popularity of the Chinese language in the present century, concomitant with the increasing role of China in the world economy. Companies who would like to become global business leaders seek the recruitment of the people who know

Chinese as well. Another example from the vicinities of China comes from the mid sixth century AD. The Bugut inscription, found in Mongolia, was formed in the Sogdian language, an eastern Iranian language that most probably travelled along the Silk Road with the Sogdian traders (Yakubovich, 2015: 48). Like the commercial contacts, social contacts, especially marriages between people from different cultures, lead to the embrace of different languages, both in the past and also present.

The change of the lingua franca in parallel with the change of the dominating power can be considered as the reflection of politics in the language. Since language is associated with the identity of civilizations, any change in the language of a society or introduction of a new language into a society confronts difficulties and involves politics. The official multilingualism of Canada is a good case representing the contention between the English and French speaking communities, where we see political manipulation and even the

3 involvement of the church into this process with the slogan: "Qui perd sa langue, perd sa foi", translated as "to lose your language is to lose your faith" (Coulmas, 1992: 92-5). So, any new language, in order to be accepted by the society, except in cases involving coercion, must serve for good purposes and contain utilitarian factors.

A striking example for the use of a language due to emulation/historical claim can be observed in the case of the early American republic using Latin on all its official monuments and coins. The classical influence, both Roman and Ancient Greek, on the

United States Constitution and its further diffusion to the American education system is very well attested in the prevalent use of Latin during that period1. Likewise,

G.B.Lanfranchi emphasizes the importance given to historical claim by stating that "in the

Hellenistic and especially in the Roman age almost all important Anatolian cities claimed to have been founded by Greek gods or heroes, or as colonies by Greek nations, in order to extol their antiquity, importance and fame". These cities reflected their ideologies in their coins, inscriptions and statues (Lanfranchi, 2000: 30, n.100).

Having in mind these various aspects of language, this thesis also aims to provide answers to the following questions: By whom was Phoenician introduced to Cilicia? Do we have settled Phoenicians in Cilicia during the Middle Iron Age? If not, who were the other people using and introducing Phoenician to Cilicia? And, what was the travel path of the

Phoenician language to Cilicia?

1 Rahe, P. A. (1992). Republics ancient and modern: Classical republicanism and the American revolution. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

2 For the selection of representative Iron Age sites, I also reviewed both the publications (I-II-III) and

4 Actually, since the discovery of the Karatepe inscriptions these questions have been much discussed among scholars. The potential means of contacts have been systematically discussed and less relevant ones eliminated. Accordingly, we are dealing with a period of contact which cannot be before the 10th c. BC and later than the 7th c. BC (Röllig, 1992:

96). The main bearers of the Phoenician language can be merchants, craftsmen and scribes.

However, their origins are contentious. There are scholars who accredit the Greeks of

Cyprus for maintaining this contact with Cilicia and refuse the presence of Phoenicians in the area (Simon, 2018). Their main argument for refusing the presence of the Phoenicians is the lack of the Phoenician pottery during the aforementioned contact period. However, there are also written sources which point to the settlement and to the presence of

Phoenicians in the area: Homer, Xenophon, Pseudo-Skylax, Stephanos Byzantios, and the

Assyrian Annals. If we follow the later suggestion, due to the reputation of Phoenicians as talented seafarers and financially intelligent traders, on the basis of the textual evidence the scope of their relation with Cilicia is estimated to be commercial.

As far as the studies of the linguists are concerned, we have one group of scholars stating that the original text of bilinguals was written in local Luwian and then translated into

Phoenician, and another group of scholars coming up with a contrary statement, i.e. the original text to have been written in Phoenician and then to have been translated into

Luwian (Yakubovich, 2015: 44-8). Although the discussion on the primary language of the bilingual inscriptions is beyond the scope of this thesis, I would like to emphasize the absence of consensus omnium on the dating of these inscriptions. In my opinion, first, the specific historical context of these inscriptions needs to be determined before attempting to establish their language sequence.

5 In this chapter, the importance of the language as a means of cultural identity and sample cases for the use of a language outside its context have been presented along with the aim of the thesis. In the second chapter, the archaeological evidence from the Middle Iron Age

Plain Cilicia will be reviewed in order to familiarize with the then dominant local culture and to evaluate the possibility of Phoenicians' settlement in the area. In the second part of the same chapter, in order to explain the presence of the foreigners in Cilicia, following the presentation of the geostrategic importance of Cilicia, the richness of the region, already known since Bronze Age, will be considered. The third chapter is devoted to the historical evaluation of Plain Cilicia during the Middle Iron Age. In the light of the Assyrian annals, the relations of Cilicians with the Assyrians, Greeks, and Phoenicians will be explored.

This historical review is crucial for both grasping the historical context of these inscriptions and also interpreting the archaeological evidence of the second chapter.

Additionally, it gives the opportunity to shed light on the nature of the presence of the

Assyrians, Greeks, and Phoenicians in Cilicia. For example, using the information we obtained from the historical evidence, we might provide answers to whether the presence of the Greeks in the region, who probably knew Phoenician language, is enough to suggest that the Phoenician language was introduced by them or not. In the fourth chapter, the role of the Mediterranean Sea and the kāru network will be discussed by considering them as

"connectors" between different cultures. The views on the possible diffusion paths for the

Phoenician language will be upheld with the perspective of the field called "economics of language" in the latter part of the chapter. My suggestions for the initiatives of the use of

Phoenician language on the monumental inscriptions in Cilicia will be provided in the conclusion. There, I will also state my considerations about the financial aspects of

Phoenicians' settlement in Cilicia.

6

CHAPTER 2

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF PLAIN CILICIA IN THE

MIDDLE IRON AGE

Since the monumental inscriptions found in Plain Cilicia are dated to the mid/late 8th c. BC, the present research focuses only on the material culture of the 8th c. BC in the excavated sites of Plain Cilicia. The area of concern has been defined as Mersin

(Yumuktepe) on the west side, Karatepe on the north side, Zincirli on the east side, and the Mediterranean Sea in the south (fig. 1). And again, based on the presence of monumental inscriptions in Phoenician language, the aim of the research is to detect whatever markers might indicate Phoenician presence in the region. If we assume that the presence of Phoenicians in Plain Cilicia led to the use of Phoenician language on these monumental inscriptions, then we should be able to detect some markers from their daily life. They include the elements of their religion - names of gods, rituals, sanctuaries, burial practices, and burial places-, elements of their daily consumption activities (vessels, pottery), and also the signs of the maritime commerce of the period (amphorae, boats). However, it should be noted here that while the existence of the evidence inarguably puts forward the presence of the

Phoenicians in the region, the opposite is not valid: the absence of Phoenician

7 occupation markers cannot rule out the possibility of their presence in the region.

Either because of the changing geographical conditions or because of the human made destructions in the region, they are not in a position to be revealed. Or, they are just waiting there to be excavated by future archaeologists in the years to come.

2.1. Surveys and Excavations

The region of Plain Cilicia, the location of cultural contacts among many civilizations throughout thousands of years, preserved its importance during the Iron

Age, also. As a result of trade activities, both maritime and by land, it remained as a contact point for the people of Anatolia to the Cypriots, Phoenicians, Syrians,

Mesopotamians, and Egyptians. The geographical location of Plain Cilicia is defined by natural borders with the Taurus Range in the west and north, the Amanus in the east and the Mediterranean Sea in the south (Novák et al. 2017: 150). Although the area attracted the attention of the explorers and geographers since the 19th c., systematic excavations there started in the 1930s. The pioneers were H. Goldman in

Tarsus-Gözlükule, J. Garstang in Mersin-Yumuktepe and Sirkeli Höyük, and H.

Bossert in Karatepe-Aslantaş. In the same period, the first comprehensive investigation of the archaeological landscape was directed by V. Seton-Williams in

1951. This archaeologically very rich region is still under the investigation of contemporary archaeologists.

2.2. Archaeological Evidence from the Excavated Sites2

2.2.1. Pottery

2 For the selection of representative Iron Age sites, I also reviewed both the publications (I-II-III) and project documents (I to VI) of the Archaeological Salvage Excavations Projects run within the scope of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Crude Oil Pipeline Project. However, the project has not revealed any new Iron Age settlement in Plain Cilicia.

8 2.2.1.1. Sirkeli Höyük

Sirkeli Höyük, with its location approximately 40 km. east of Adana, where the

Ceyhan river makes its way through the Misis mountains, constituted one of the hubs on the ancient trade route, and thus has been under continuous investigation. The site had been excavated at first by Garstang (1936), later by Hrouda (1992-96) and

Ehringhaus (1997). The current excavations directed by M. Novák name the period concerned by this thesis Neo-Cilician 3 (NCI 3): 950- 720 BC (Novák, Kozal &

Yaşin, 2019: 34-36). The period starts with the appearance of the painted Cypro-

Cilician3 pottery ca. 950 BC and ends with the political annexation of Cilicia to

Assyria. With 720 BC Assyrian and Assyrianized pottery was introduced into the region.

The pottery findings of NCI 3 include painted, wheel-turned and mostly locally produced Cypro-Cilician pottery with a broad spectrum of vessels, which catch the attention of researchers because of their strong resemblance to the pottery of Cyprus of the same period (Novák et al. 2019: 42). In Sirkeli Höyük, all three basic types of

Cypro-Cilician pottery had been found: White Painted Wares, Bichrome Wares, and

Black-on-Red Wares. The surfaces of White Painted Wares from Sirkeli Höyük were plain, and they were painted with dark brown to black decorations (Novák et al.

2019: 351). They were rarely coated or polished. Both the inside and outside of

White Painted Wares were mostly in light or pale yellow-brown, where sometimes a reddish colour could also be observed. The Bichrome Wares of Sirkeli Höyük could only be differentiated from the White Painted Wares by their additional second colour, varying from red to violet. Likewise, the Black-on-Red Wares of Sirkeli

3 Mönninghof, Hannah; Cypro-Cilician Wares, The Levantine Ceramics Project, accessed on 14 February 2020, https://www.levantineceramics.org/wares/558-cypro-cilician-painted-wares.

9 Höyük could be differentiated from the above stated two types only by their colours.

They were red slipped vessels with black paint. The Red Slip Wares in Sirkeli Höyük were often polished. This type of polished Red Slip Wares was seen in the southern

Levant as the hallmark of Iron Age II (Gates, 2010: 72). Any sort of vessel could be produced according to these three types of Cypro-Cilician pottery (Novák et al.

2019: 351). Other than these, black/ dark grey slips were applied to closed vessels with fluting, a decorative pattern of parallel vertical grooves. The researchers of

Sirkeli Höyük project compare them to the Black Slip I-II Wares of Gjerstad's work

(1948) on Cyprus.

The technical evaluation of White Painted Wares has led the researchers to think that these wares were produced locally. While the production technique was homogeneous, there was a huge variety in the forms and in the decorations of the pottery. The most likely supporting archaeological evidence for the local production of pottery during the Neo Cilician Period (ca.1190-330 BC) of the site comes from the northern part of the citadel. The geomagnetic survey conducted in an area where wasters were discovered showed anomalies, making the researchers think about the possibility of having kilns in the area (Novák et al. 2019: 73).

Among the pottery assemblage of NCI 3, in addition to Cypro-Cilician pottery locally produced Standard Wares had also been reported (Novák et al. 2019: 350).

The Levantine Ceramics Project identifies the Standard Wares discovered in Sirkeli

Höyük as a subgroup of Syro-Cilician Painted Ware4, of which comparisons can be found in Tell Afis, in North Syria. This mainly unpainted pottery assemblage

4 Horowitz, Mara; Kozal, Ekin; Syro-Cilician Painted Ware, The Levantine Ceramics Project, accessed on 12 April 2020, https://www.levantineceramics.org/wares/524-syro-cilician-painted-ware.

10 includes plain rim bowls, carinated bowls, deep bowls, bowls with pedestal foot, plain rim jugs, trefoil jugs and hole-mouth jars.. Based on their quality, temper, surface treatment and baked colour they differ widely. In Sirkeli Höyük, in NCI 3, the simple, round-shaped bowls/ vessels with lightly emphasized edges were dominant as Standard Wares.

2.2.1.2. Karatepe

The excavations in Karatepe started in 1945 under the direction of Helmuth Theodor

Bossert, and continued after 1952 under the direction of Halet Çambel. Since

Karatepe and Domuztepe are located on the two banks of Ceyhan River, the excavators suggest a connection between the two sites. It's thus important to analyze the pottery from Karatepe with the findings from Domuztepe, as was done by A. M.

Darga (1984) and by E.-M. Bossert (2014). The sherds from Karatepe were mostly discovered in the numerous round pits, which excavators suggest either were used as silos or cisterns. The ceramics were grouped as Monochrome and Painted Wares, where the Monochrome Wares constitute 95% of the material and Painted Wares only 5% (Darga, 1984: 374, 381). Darga suggests the use of the Monochrome Wares for daily consumption activities, and groups them according to their sizes as big, medium, and small. For the big-sized ones, comparisons with the Zincirli pottery was done (Darga, 1984: 378). For the medium-sized ones comparisons were made with the Iron Age findings from Tarsus-Gözlükule and Mersin-Yumuktepe, and similarities detected. Especially, the similarity of the form of the middle-sized ones to Cyprus Bichrome Ware and Tarsus- Iron Age findings have been noted by Darga, where the ones from Tarsus were evaluated as being of a better quality (Darga, 1984:

379). As for the Painted Wares, they lack any human, animal or plant figure, but

11 feature only geometric motifs (Darga, 1984: 383). They are wheel-made and based on their technical aspects they resemble the Cypro-Geometric III type (800-750 BC).

In both studies, no imported Greek pottery was reported.

Based on the pottery analysis, the earlier layers (third and second) of Karatepe were dated to the 11th-9th centuries BC (Bossert, 2014: 135). The layer of the silos was decided to be contemporary to the B level of Domuztepe, and thus dated to the 9th c.

BC. Lastly, the analysis of pottery discovered in the Palace of Azatiwatas dates the upper phase of the city to the Middle Iron Age. For this dating, comparative analysis to the pottery from the "Destruction Layer" at Tarsus has shed light on the studies of both Darga and Bossert.

2.2.1.3. Kinet Höyük

According to the excavations conducted by M.-H. Gates, Kinet Höyük was occupied from the Late Neolithic period up until the 1st c. BC with a reoccupation during the

Middle Ages around AD 10th-13th centuries (Gates, 1999: 260-261). Gates associated this continuous occupation of the site with its role in the Eastern

Mediterranean’s maritime trade. Parallel to this fact, the Middle Iron Age (9th and

8th centuries BC corresponding to Phase III: 2) in Kinet Höyük has been defined as a period of intense cultural contacts (Hodos, Knappett & Kilikoglou, 2005: 62). This characteristic of the Middle Iron Age of Kinet Höyük is very clearly attested in the similarity of the material culture of the period with those of the settlements in the territory of Unqi and also with those of Tarsus in the same period (Hodos et al. 2005:

64). During the Middle Iron Age in Kinet Höyük, a large number of Cypro-Cilician vessels were manufactured which had been decorated with motifs originally attested

12 in Cypro-Geometric III vessels. With the Neo-Assyrian occupation in the mid-8th c.

BC, the dominance of cooking vessels and table wares which were decorated in

Cypro-Cilician style was terminated abruptly, and new types of pottery which are identified as Neo-Assyrian in style and type appeared (Hodos et al. 2005: 65-66).

Among the recovered items, a large storage jar with a nine-letter Phoenician inscription, incised before firing, just below its collar rim is of utmost importance

(Gates, 2004: 408, 414 Fig: 8). The jar was dated to the second half of the 8th c. BC and states, "To Sarmakaddanis", a name which includes Luwian and Hurrian elements.

2.2.1.4. Tepebağ Höyük

Tepebağ is located in the city center of Adana. Despite the knowledge of the site since the work of Seton Williams in 1954, systematic archaeological excavations started only at the end of 2013 under F. Şahin (Seton Williams, 1954: 148; Şahin,

2016: 195). By the second half of the 2015 season, they reached the fifth layer, which is dedicated to the Iron Age (Şahin, 2017:162). The pottery discovered in this layer is described as Iron Age painted pottery with decorations of geometric motifs

(Şahin, 2017: 161, 172 Fig: 7). These were reported as locally produced and dated to the so-called Orientalizing Period. With further excavations on the site, during 2017, more Iron Age pottery was found in the Iron Age II layers (950-720 BC). They were also in conformity with the material culture found in Plain Cilicia in the same period:

White Painted, Bichrome, Red Slip, Black-on-red Wares identified as Cypro-Cilician

Pottery (Yaşin et al., 2019: 540, 542: Table- 1).

13 2.2.1.5. Yumuktepe

Yumuktepe, located in the north-western district of Mersin has been restudied by archaeologists since 1993, almost fifty years after the end of the well-known excavation of J. Garstang in 1947. Although Iron Age layers have been found on the site, because of the heavy constructions during the Middle Ages, they are severely damaged. The IV-III levels of Garstang's work belong to the Middle and Late Iron

Age periods and have been updated by the results of recent studies to cover the years of 900-350 BC (Novák et al. 2017: 158). Accordingly, the findings of Level IV are dated to the 8th c. BC (Novák et al. 2017: 160). Most of the ceramics discovered from the Iron Age layers are assigned to the 7th-5th centuries BC (Caneva, I.,

Köroğlu, G., Köroğlu, K., Özaydın T. 2006: 107). They mainly included sherds of amphorae, painted potteries and craters. As in the rest of Plain Cilicia, in Yumuktepe also many sherds of Cypriot-style pottery were discovered (Özaydın, 2010: 78;

Caneva et al. 2006, 112: Fig 4).

2.2.1.6. Tarsus- Gözlükule

The first excavations, which were conducted by H. Goldman during the 1930s, were reevaluated with the project of Boğaziçi University starting in 2001. Accordingly, the level of Tarsus-Gözlükule in which this research is interested is the MIA (Middle

Iron Age) Level, covering the period 850-700 BC (Novák et al. 2017: 162-163). In the MIA Level, among the discovered ceramics Cypro-Cilician Painted Ware, Red

Slipped Ware and Greek imports were recorded.

14 2.2.1.7. Misis

At Misis, located about 25 km east of Adana, the Middle Iron Age corresponds to the

Phases 13-10, covering a time span from 950 BC to 700 BC (Novák et al. 2017:

168). The assemblage of pottery includes Cypriot style vessels of Cypro-Geometric

II, III and Cypro-Archaic I types, and some Greek imports, for which the main source would be Euboea (D'Agata, 2019: 91-103). The scientific analyses on the

Cypriot style ceramics showed that they mainly were produced locally. Based on these results and following Roux, D'Agata suggests the presence in Misis of specialized Cypriot potters teaching the manufacturing techniques to local artisans

(D'Agata, 2019: 104). As for the Greek imports, they were mainly restricted to eating and drinking vessels, showing parallels to their uses in Tell Tayinat, where during the 9th and 8th centuries BC Greek imports constituted the feasting assemblage reserved for the local elites (D'Agata, 2019: 103). In addition to these two main groups, it is worth mentioning the clay figurines with horses, and those with both horses and riders from Phase 10. They make up important evidence for the presence of cavalry in the region in the course of the 8th c. BC (D'Agata, 2019: 91).

2.2.2. Phoenician Amphorae

The storage jars and amphorae, varying in size and shape according to their contents, are the most important indices of trade activities. Since they were produced for the conservation and transportation of traded goods, they were made of better quality than the everyday vessels. Mostly, they had a fine or intermediate fabric, rather than a common one (Núñez, 2019: 342). Cilicia, due to taking part in the increasing trade activities during Iron Age, is expected to yield transport jars. Lehmann states that most of the Phoenician amphorae of Cilicia were recorded at Kinet Höyük and all

15 amphorae in Middle Iron levels at Kinet Höyük were of Phoenician [and Levantine?] type (Lehmann, 2016: 325). The amphorae from Tarsus that were previously identified by Hanfmann as Phoenician have been reevaluated and described as not

Phoenician with the only exception of a juglet from 8th c. BC (Lehmann, 2016: 329, note 3).

2.2.3. Burial Places/ Necropoli

No Phoenician cemetery has been reported from the excavations in Cilicia, nor have any Iron Age cemeteries been reported.

2.2.4. Sanctuaries

No Phoenician sanctuary or tophet, which is considered to be related with Phoenician and Punic practice, has been reported from the excavations in Cilicia. Having said that, the continuing excavations in Tatarlı Höyük should be monitored very closely.

Girginer, the director of the excavations on the site, suspects that Tatarlı Höyük could be the city of Lawazantiya, one of the most important Hittite sanctuary sites in

Kizzuwatna, and that the site's role as a religious center might have continued throughout the Iron Age and Hellenistic periods (Girginer, S., Oyman-Girginer, Ö.,

Akıl, H. 2011: 134). They reported a partly preserved Astarte figurine in the Iron

Age layers (Girginer, S., Oyman-Girginer, Ö., Akıl, H., Cevher, M., Aklan, İ., 2014:

185, 193: Fig.10b).

16 2.2.5. Inscriptions

There are more attested Phoenician inscriptions in Cilicia than in any other region.

They are dated to the 9th and 8th centuries BC5. Although most of them are royal and monumental, there are also a few objects on which Phoenician writing is attested. All these inscriptions (small and monumental) are presented by Lehmann

(2008: 219-221).

2.2.5.1. Monumental Phoenician Inscriptions

Despite its findspot outside Plain Cilicia, we have to note that the most ancient evidence comes from nearby Zincirli (ancient Sam'al), in southeastern Anatolia. It is named the Kulamuva inscription, according to its dedication, and is coded as KAI

246. The orthostat and its royal Phoenician inscription are dated to c.825 BC.

Although the name Kulamuwa with its ending -muwa represents a Luwian onomastic character, the king is considered to be perfectly Aramaean in the light of Aramaean filiation symbols (Lemaire, 2001: 186).

Two contemporary Luwian- Phoenician bilinguals are from Çineköy7 and Karatepe

(KAI 26); they are dated to c. 738-709 BC and c. 720 BC (or mid-8th c), respectively.

The Karatepe inscription (fig. 2), the longest extant Phoenician text to date, was displayed along the citadel entryway, whereas the Çineköy inscription was placed on a monument to the storm god Tarhunza (fig. 3). Contemporary to these two bilinguals is the monolingual Phoenician inscription from Hasanbeyli8 (KAI 23), which is dated to ca.715 BC. All three of these inscriptions name a king Awarikus

5 The discussions on dating of the monumental inscriptions continue. This issue will be dealt with in the fourth chapter. 6 KAI: Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften 7 Çineköy lies 30 km south of Adana. 8 Hasanbeyli lies about 30 km south of Karatepe and 13 km west of Zincirli.

17 (or Warikas), about whose personality discussions among scholars still continue9

(Richey, 2019: 227). The fourth archaeological evidence for the 8th c. BC inscriptions comes from Incirli10 (dated to the late 8th c. BC). This stele and its trilingual inscription -Akkadian-Luwian-Phoenician- were very worn; only the

Phoenician part was legible and states a king (again maybe King Awarikus /

Warikas) in the context of disputed borders (Özyar, 2016: 141). The fifth and last evidence comes from the northern foot-hills of the Taurus, at Ivriz11. The bilingual

Phoenician-Luwian inscription on the fragmentary stela is evaluated to date ca. 725-

700 BC and clearly appeals to the ruler of Tuwana-classical Tyana- named

Warpalawa (Richey, 2019: 227).

The single 7th c. BC (c.625-600 BC) dated inscription was discovered in Cebelireis

Dağı (KAI 287), 15 km east of Alanya. This stele is important for being the only

Phoenician text recording the settlement of a dispute on land holdings (Richey, 2019:

227).

2.2.5.2. Other Phoenician Inscriptions

The small items, recovered from the region, and having Phoenician inscriptions on them can be listed chronologically as follows (Lehmann, 2008: 219-221): a) Zincirli, c. 825 BC, scepter inscription of Kulamuwa (KAI 2512). b) Cilicia, bilingual inscription in Phoenician and Luwian on a cylinder seal, dated to

9th or 8th c. BC (in the collection of H.T.Bossert, and read as "Seal of the

Tyrian.").

9 For the discussion of these personalities, see Lipiński: 2004: 116-130. 10 Incirli lies in a village in Kahramanmaraş, east of Karatepe. 11 Ivriz is in Ereğli, Konya. 12 There are scholars who suggest its language as local Sam'alian dialect (Amadasi Guzzo, 2019: 159, Lemaire, 2001: 186).

18 c) Cilicia (?), decontextualized group of six seals with Anatolian (Luwian) names,

dated to the end of 8th c. BC. d) Kinet Höyük, Phoenician inscription on a jar before firing, dated to the late 8th c.

BC.

2.2.6. Reliefs

Monumental reliefs constitute another good resource for revealing cultural contacts, and thus this section is devoted to a short discussion of the reliefs of Plain Cilicia.

The most important reliefs of Plain Cilicia were discovered in Karatepe. Since their discovery, they were the subject of numerous studies, both in terms of their dating and in terms of their styles and iconographies. The generally accepted view about them is that they date to the 8th c. BC, and that they were produced by two different workshops, reflected in two distinct styles (Winter, 1973: 240-241). Although stylistically they were grouped into two, the reliefs represent a wider range of cultural contacts for the local people of Karatepe. Stylistically close, and in some cases closely similar examples can be found in Tell Halaf, Zincirli, Sakçagözü, Ivriz, and Nimrud (Winter, 1979: 116-118). Also, features belonging to Phrygian and

Greek cultures were included.

In addition to the stylistic diversity, the variety of scenes displayed on the reliefs attracts a great deal of the viewer's attention. They include mythological scenes with divine figures, heroic scenes with lions and vultures, religious scenes, battle scenes of different types (naval, hand to hand, involving horsemen and chariots), banqueting scenes including music, dance and sacrifice of animals, hunting scenes, and scenes of figures who are half-man and half-animal (Çambel & Özyar, 2003). Some elements

19 in their iconographies remind of Phoenician art. The Bes-figure (NVr2, NKr2), the apotropaic dwarf daemon, is a figure that we observe very widely both in Egyptian and Phoenician contexts. The banqueting scenes (marzeah), which we encounter mostly in religious contexts, where his descendants honour the dead person, are widely attested in North Syria and the Levant during the 1st millennium BC (Çambel

& Özyar, 2003: SVl2, SVl3, SKr15, SKr16). The origin of the war-ship on the relief

NKr19 has been another subject of discussion. As the boats were identified on the

Greek pottery of the mid-to late 8th c. BC, some scholars emphasize their Aegean origin (Özyar, 2016: 142). Nevertheless, the same type of boat with inward-curving stern was illustrated on a Sidonian coin from the 4th c. BC. Likewise, the Phoenician biremes represented on a relief of Sennacherib are essentially the same boat with a few differences in oars (Winter, 1979: 120). The nursing scene (NVr8) is another scene which exhibits Phoenician inspirations. A similar scene was displayed on a

Phoenician silver bowl from the Bernardini Tomb in Etruria (Aruz, 2014: 11, ill. bottom left). In addition to these, I. J. Winter states that parallels from Phoenician sources can be found in the motifs of small palmette plants (NVl2), chains of bud and lotus (NVl10), and interlacing volute patterns (Winter, 1979: 121-122). She identifies these motifs, along with the symmetrically drooping palm-fronds on a low central stalk, which appears as a vertical support of the table in the banqueting scene

(SVl3) as characteristic Phoenician types.

The last important evidence for Phoenician influence on Karatepe's visual art is traceable in the two Phoenician-style portal sphinxes of the Northern Citadel (fig. 4).

Almost all the scholars agree on the similarity of the ornamented, rounded shoulder pad of the portal sphinx with the one of the winged sphinx (fig. 5), which is included

20 in the group of Phoenician ivories from Arslan Tash, North Syria (Fontan, 2014:

152-156).

Before concluding this short discussion on the Karatepe reliefs and the visible

Phoenician influence on them, I want to call attention to the composition of the reliefs. While looking at these reliefs lined up next to each other, one is inclined to associate them with each other, as representing the parts of a whole, meaningful composition. However, the themes of the reliefs standing side by side are so diverse and different, the viewer starts to think that they were set up randomly. This feeling of random set-up couldn't be dismissed, if we had not the example of a carved ivory bed panel from Ugarit, dated to Late Bronze Age, on which the sequence of scenes is similarly "random" (Aruz, 2014: 10, ill. bottom left). These examples already from the Late Bronze Age make researchers consider that this long-established tradition in composition was introduced from the Levant region to Plain Cilicia.

Unfortunately, based on the available data, it is not possible to make any suggestion on the origins of the artists of the Karatepe reliefs; whether they were wandering/settled Phoenician artists in Cilicia or the local artists who were inspired by the Phoenician art style. Nevertheless, this short discussion on the Karatepe reliefs illustrates the fact that the Phoenician art style and their iconographies were known and used in the area. The Karatepe reliefs along with the monumental Phoenician inscription constitute the most important archaeological evidence for the presence of the cultural contacts of the local Luwian inhabitants and the Phoenicians in Karatepe.

21 2.3. Evaluation of Plain Cilicia: Potential Factors Attracting Phoenician Interest in the Area

Cilicia, throughout all periods, has been a region of paramount geostrategic importance to people involved in commercial activities. It was a crossroad and transit area both connecting the Mediterranean shore with Central and West Anatolia through the passes in the Taurus mountains and also to Northern Syria via the southeastern part of Plain Cilicia through its passes in the Amanus (Forlanini, 2013:

2, Fig.1). The Cilician Road System, Forlanini's "Transverse Highway of

Kizzuwatna", is reconstructed mainly with the evidence from the Hittite texts, supported by Assyrian annals and one letter written by the queen of Ugarit to

Urtenu13 (Forlanini, 2013: 11-24). The network consists of several main roads, of which the most important to mention here are (fig. 6):

a) The road from ADANIYA (Adana, Tepebağ Höyük) to the mouth of the river

PURUNA (Pyramus/Ceyhan), b) The road to the sea from LAWAZANDIYA (Tatarlı Höyük) to IZZIYA (Kinet

Höyük), c) The road leading from KUMANNI (Sirkeli Höyük) to the upper land (Central

Anatolia), d) The roads crossing the Taurus Range and the Highway through the Cilician

Gates, either taking the road from TARSA (Tarsus-Gözlükule) northwards or

from ADANIYA (Adana-Tepebağ Höyük) in the northwest direction,

13 The queen of Ugarit, after landing on the Mediterranean shore, wrote a letter to Urtenu, a great merchant and a politically important man with ties to the royal family at Ugarit (Calvet, 2000: 211). The queen informs Urtenu that she will be staying that day at Domuztepe (MLWM), the next day at Adana (ADANIYA), the day after at Misis (ZUNNAHARA) and the day following at UNUHU, continuing towards inland (Forlanini, 2013: 5-6).

22 e) The roads along the coast from URA14 (Silifke) to ELLIPRA (Mersin-

Yumuktepe), then from ELLIPRA either continuing via TARSA (Tarsus-

Gözlükule) to the Cilician Gates and afterwards Central Anatolia or after a little

bit continuance towards north, diverting westwards.

The above stated Cilician Road System proves that the needed infrastructure for trade activities was very well established already in the Hittite period. It should be kept in mind that this far-flung road system not only was important for trade activities, but also for the transmission of different elements of the cultures involved in them. So, it is worth now reviewing the potential items that might attract the

Phoenicians' attention to the region.

2.3.1. Metal Ores

The Hittite texts indubitably indicate that metals and metallurgy had a very important role in Hittite culture. While the Assyrian merchants in the Middle Bronze Age were dealing with the trade of materials (both regional and interregional), the production and processing of metals were fulfilled by the native craftsmen, making up a valuable inheritance for the people living in Anatolia (Siegelová & Tsumoto, 2011:

275-277). For such an advanced level of metallurgy, the sources of metal should have been present in the vicinity. Also, in order to provide metals to settlement areas, some sites must have been developed for the first stages of the acquisition of metals, such as mining and preparing them for delivery, the stages named by Lehner as "raw material acquisition" and "primary production" (Lehner, 2014: 137). For the sources

14 At the mouth of the Göksu River was located (perhaps) the important harbor of URA (Seleucia, Silifke), whose merchants were active on the sea and had a base in Ugarit on the northern Phoenician coast (Forlanini, 2013: 25). Kelenderis has also been proposed as location for this site (see below, p.64)

23 of metal, the best candidates were the Pontic and Taurus mountains, offering rich mineral resources, such as copper, iron and silver (Siegelová & Tsumoto, 2011: 284).

Especially, the Bolkardağ mining district of the central Taurus includes major deposits of iron, argentiferous lead, copper-lead-zinc ores and, to a much lesser extent, minor occurrences of oxides and sulfides of tin including stannite and cassiterite and some gold (Lehner, 2014: 137). Conforming to this fact, the analysis of lead isotopes on metal finds from Anatolia and northern Syria revealed their origins as the Taurus Mountains (Yener, 1995: 104-5). The analyzed group included artefacts from the southern frontier of the Hittites, such as Cilicia and the Amuq, ranging from the Chalcolithic to the Late Bronze Age. Within this framework, the

Taurus Mountains, especially the Bolkar Dağları and Niğde Massif remain as the main source of interest for the people involved in metal trade during the Iron Age.

The Bolkar Mountains, part of the Taurus Range, stretching from Mersin through southern Konya to Niğde, and important for metal mining and ore dressing from prehistoric periods onwards, are situated on the Cilician Road System, close to the

Cilician Gates. Unfortunately, it was not until 2013 that a first systematic survey project in the southeastern districts of Konya began under the supervision of Ç.

Maner, with the aim of investigating the Bronze and Iron Age settlements of the region. The Konya Ereğli Survey Project (KEYAR) involves Ereğli, Halkapınar,

Emirgazi, and Karapınar with the west-end being Lake Acıgöl and east-end being

Ankara-Adana highway. The area under investigation reaches its north-end at Çumra and abuts the Bolkar Mountains in the south (Maner, 2017: 438). For this thesis, the most important findings from the first campaign were four rocks, known as multi- hollow anvils or multi-hollow mortars, used for ore dressing as parts of open-air

24 metal workshops (Maner, 2017: 439). They were discovered in Taştepe Obası, c. 20 km west of the Cilician Gates and c. 8-12 km north of the Bolkar Mountains. Maner states that some multi-hollow anvils were reported earlier from Niğde- Çamardı

Celaller village (80 km north of Tarsus), a place important for stannite mineralization. Another stannite mineral deposit in the vicinity was discovered by

Yener and Özbal in Bolkardağ Sulucadere. Again, in close proximity there were other Early Bronze Age sites, where the discovered body of evidence identifies their involvement in mining activities: Kestel, Mine Damı and Göltepe (Yener, 2000: 71-

109).

2.3.1.1. Silver

Silver, which we start to encounter in the 4th millennium BC, became during the 3rd millennium BC a unit of value and a medium of exchange in Near Eastern economies. In the Early Dynastic and Akkadian periods in Mesopotamia, loans, deposits, purchases, tribute in war and offerings to the gods were made in silver

(Yener, 1983: 2; Eshel et al., 2018: 198). Since Mesopotamia and Egypt had no silver, this newly associated function triggered the trade in silver. Silver started to be bought and sold as a commodity among the urban centers of Mesopotamia and Syria.

With the 2nd millennium BC, we see in Hittite sources the regular export of gold and silver to Mesopotamia in return for manufactured textiles and tin from the region.

Silver, the valuable item appearing on the trade lists, was also used as a medium of payment in these trade activities (Siegelová & Tsumoto, 2011: 275).

A customs account dated 475 BC from Elephantine reveals that the same tradition still continued in the 5th c. BC (Yardeni, 1994: 70). This Aramaic text mentions that

25 the duty collected from Ionian and Phoenician (most probably Sidonian) ships, carrying goods to and from Egypt, was in gold and silver.

The evidence for the relationship of Cilicia and Phoenicia in terms of silver comes from Southern Phoenicia. Four Iron Age silver hoards from Tell Keisan, Tel Dor,

‘Ein Hofez and ‘Akko were analyzed by Eshel et al. both for their functional aspect of being used as currency and for their origins with the aim of providing input to the discussions about the "pre-colonization period" of the Phoenicians in the west

Mediterranean. Eshel et al. analyzed lead isotopes15 in silver artifacts from three of these four hoards, excluding ones from Tell Keisan, which due to their inclusion of copper could have influenced the scientific results (Eshel, Erel, Yahalom-Mack,

Tirosh, Gilboa, 2019: 6008). Accordingly, the analysis of Dor artefacts, from the 2nd half of the 10th c. BC, points to the origins of ores from two provenances: Anatolia and Sardinia. For the group originated from Anatolia, the results presented precise overlap with Taurus 1A ores in the Bolkardağ valley (Eshel et al., 2019: 6008-9).

The analysis on ‘Akko artefacts, dated 10th-9th centuries BC, supported the results derived from the Dor artefacts, with two provenances as Anatolia and Sardinia, and also pointing to the Taurus mountains in Anatolia. As for the hoard from ‘Ein Hofez, only two items, dated to 9th c. BC, turned out to have the origins of their silvers from

Taurus 1A ores, the rest had originated from the ores in Iberia.

Before concluding the section on the ores of silver in the ancient times, it is worth mentioning the main silver ores in the Aegean. The works of Gale and Stos-Gale

15 Native silver is rare in nature. The most abundant silver minerals are the sulfides, which have an affinity for lead sulfide called galena, which has been presumed to be an important source for silver in ancient times. Silver can be extracted from lead ores in a process termed cupellation. So, ancient silver artifacts are likely to contain small amounts of lead. The isotope composition of the traces of lead in silver artifacts, which remains the same throughout further structural changes of the material, is used for locating the origin of silver ore (Yener, 1983: 7-8).

26 refer to two main places: the Laurion region in the tip of peninsula of Attica and the island of Siphnos (Yener, 1983: 7).

2.3.1.2. Iron

Among the goods carried on the Phoenician ships, mentioned on the customs list from Elephantine, we see iron as well (Yardeni, 1994: 70). In fact, the Çukurova region (Late Bronze Kizzuwatna) was known for its iron resources from the Hittite period. The region still preserves its importance in terms of iron concentration. The ores from Adana, Kayseri and Hatay make up 24.98% of all iron ore beds in Turkey

(Güder, Gates, Yalçın, 2017: 51). In addition to its richness in iron resources, its geostrategic position as the passageway to the rich iron deposits in Niğde (Ulukışla),

Faraşa (Kayseri-Yahyalı) and Maraş puts Cilicia into a privileged position throughout all times (Maxwell-Hyslop, 1974: 151-152). When citing the iron deposits in Cilicia, it is important to mention those between Silifke and Aydıncık,

Mersin illustrated also in the map provided by Maxwell-Hyslop (1974: 141-Plate

XX)16.

The increase in the demand for iron during the 9th-7th centuries BC in Cilicia coincides with the development of deliberate steel production (Güder, Gates, Yalçın,

2017: 51-2). The Iron Age blacksmiths' high level of knowledge on steel production can be detected in the archaeological evidence from the ancient seaport Kinet Höyük.

The analysis on the sample of iron objects and slags discovered on the site revealed an advanced level of metallurgical technology. The people involved in this process

16 A team from Ankara University, Engineering Faculty and MTA Genel Müdürlüğü, Turkey confirmed the existence of these iron ores. In their studies, they used a combination of the Landsat 7 ETM+ satellite data, Proton Magnetomer and geochemical data, and the results are summarized on their website (www.jmo.org.tr/resimler/ekler/20c8401038c492fe_ek.pdf).

27 were using carburization needed to strengthen the iron and heat treatments identified as normalizing and annealing. Moreover, the metal workers at Kinet Höyük were aware of the different compositions of the materials and could overcome this heterogeneity in their raw materials by adapting thermo-mechanical treatments

(Güder, Gates, Yalçın, 2017: 60-63). In doing that, their control over the temperatures in their smithing hearths, and their use of refractory materials are also to be noted. Taking the results of this detailed study into consideration, claiming the metal workers of Iron Age at Kinet Höyük as specialized craftsmen in the iron/steel production shouldn't be contested. Hence, in Cilicia during the Middle Iron Age both valuable iron ores and specialized iron/steel workers were present.

2.3.2. Natron

Unfortunately, there is no archaeological research about the presence of natron in

Cilicia and its trade from Anatolia in ancient times. Nonetheless, due to its wide range of uses it was among the most demanded goods by the contemporaries and thus along with its substitute trona included in my research for the attractive resources of Cilicia. Natron, chemically composed of sodium carbonate decahydrate and extracted from soda-beds, was used for purification, mummification, glassmaking, dyeing, and preserving (Dardeniz, 2015: 191; Yardeni, 1994: 72). It was stated in the customs list from Elephantine and appears in the list of outgoing ships (Yardeni, 1994: 69, 72).

Natron is still a crucial element in soap/detergent and glass industries. Its spread to use in the vitrified material industry occurred in the Iron Age. Following the transition to iron technology, a shift from the use of plant ashes to natron as flux has

28 been attested in the glass industry, continuing until the 7th to 9th centuries AD

(Dardeniz, 2015: 193). Being a form of soda, it was used as a component in vitrified material (frit, faience, glazed pottery) and glass production together with other components such as silica and lime (Dardeniz, 2015: 191).

Iron Age archaeology shows that from the 7th or 6th century BC onwards, the

Levantine coast in general, and in particular Phoenicia intensified its glass-making industry, which previously was under the dominance of Egyptians (Uberti, 1999:

536). Even if we know today that Pliny's attribution of the invention of glass to the

Phoenicians is not valid, it may have originated from their sand's suitability for glassmaking (Freestone, Wolf, Thirlwall, 2009: 33). Sedimentological data shows that many sands between the Nile and Akko have sufficient calcium carbonate to produce a good quality glass, with the best concentration on the Bay of Haifa.

Both the change in the production technique from plant ash glass to natron glass, and the appearance of the Levant region as the best glass production center in the Iron

Age, might have affected the trade of natron in the eastern Mediterranean region. As primarily being talented merchants, the Phoenicians had to fullfill the demand for natron in the, so to speak, market. Other than its use in glassmaking, the use of natron by Greeks and Egyptians in bleaching linen and by Phoenicians in dyeing wool, especially purple dyeing were also among the determining factors of the demand of natron in the market (Bresson, 2016: 354).

The major sources of natron were the Wadi Natrun and al-Barnuj in Egypt.

Additionally, it was present in Macedonia, al-Jabbul lakes in Syria, and Lake Van in eastern Turkey. The scientific analyses so far conducted showed the origin of natron

29 in Near Eastern glass artifacts to be Egypt (Egyptian Blue) and there is no evidence for the trade of natron from Lake Van. However, the first chemical analyses on artifacts from Urartian fortress Ayanis yielded different results, indicating the use of local natron and thus identifying Ayanis Egyptian Blue (Dardeniz, 2015: 194-7).

While continuing her research on the natron from Lake Van and possible trade relations with the eastern Mediterranean, Dardeniz presents trona as a substitute source for natron (Dardeniz, 2015: 197; Freestone, Wolf, Thirlwall, 2009: 34).

Dardeniz states that by heating the trona mineral up to 200°C natron could be produced. The world's second largest known resource of trona exists in Central

Anatolia, north of Beypazarı. The formation of this reserve dates to the Middle and

Upper Miocene and was available to settlements during the Iron Age.

Before concluding the discussion on the possible sources of natron in Cilicia, I would like to draw attention to the presence of private soda producing companies in the area today. Mersin Kazanlı Soda Sanayi in the region operates in the glass industry. Also, the Bolluk/Böllük Gölü and Tersakan Gölü located in Cihanbeyli, Konya are lakes which supply raw materials for another private company [or companies?] producing soda.

2.3.3. Salt

Salt was a resource of major importance in ancient times. Among the plentiful resources of Central Anatolia, we have to mention also salt, mainly acquired from

Tuz Gölü (Salt Lake). It is a large lake measuring ca. 85 x 60 km. The water of the lake has a high salt content, up to 33% saline (Erdoğu & Fazlıoğlu, 2006: 189).

30 Within the scope of the Central Anatolia Salt Project (CASP), salt consumption and salt exploitation were documented since late Aceramic Neolithic periods (Erdoğu &

Fazlıoğlu, 2006: 190). Salt, with a high demand in all times on behalf of all civilizations was a valuable item to be traded.

I would also like to touch on alum, an aluminum and potassium sulfate. Alum was a vital ingredient for wool dyeing, used in the "mordanting" process for setting dyes used on fabrics (Bresson, 2016: 354). After a thorough washing, wool was dipped in a bath based on alum, along with ferrous compounds, and possibly also vinegar.

Alum was derived from alunite by boiling with water (Forbes, 1965: 190). Although there is no evidence for trade of alum from Cilicia, I wanted to mention that the

Taurus Mountains in Seydişehir, Konya have the richest aluminum reserves in

Anatolia.

2.3.4. Wood/Timber

Information on the trees forming the Cilician forests mostly comes from textual evidence. Strabo, Theophrastus, Pliny, and Diodorus of Sicily were only some of the writers who mentioned the magnificence and richness of the forests in three mountain systems (Taurus Mountains, Amanus Mountains, Lebanon Range) that run parallel to the line of coast around the Gulf of İskenderun (Özbayoğlu, 2003: 166-7).

The Cilician forests in the Taurus Mountains constitute one of these three main groups of forests in the area, which like the others are famous for their cedars, firs, and junipers. These trees very much deserved their popularity. The wood of the cedar resisted rot and insects, was very durable, had an attractive aromatic scent, and was much appreciated by carpenters and cabinetmakers due to its easy workable feature

31 (Meiggs, 1998: 55). Juniper and cypress closely resembled cedars in their colour and scent. While not being comparable to cedar in its height, on the other hand, juniper was stronger than cedar. With their durability, cedars and junipers were greatly prized in ancient times, as stated by Meiggs: "cedars and junipers can produce excellent timber even after 600 years" (Meiggs, 1998: 56). Fir, another dominant type of tree in Cilicia, was regarded as the best timber for building both houses and warships. Actually fir, pine, and cedar were all suitable for ship-building. In the building of warships such as triremes, where speed becomes the main concern, fir was preferred because of its lighter feature. However, it was vulnerable to rot and insect attacks. Therefore, for the building of merchant ships cedar was preferred

(Meiggs, 1998: 56). The Amanus mountain range also possessed a very rich variety of desirable trees; including cedar, cypress, juniper, boxwood, oak, fir, and pine

(Watson-Treumann, 2000: 77-8).

Textual evidence reflects extensive exploitation of all these three groups of forests, for both local use and also for commercial purposes to meet the demand of Egyptians and Assyrians. Some scholars have suggested the dense settlement on the eastern coastal plain of the Gulf of Iskenderun during the Iron Age as the result of these exploitation activities (Watson-Treumann, 2000: 78). Accordingly, the rivers provided ready means for floating the cut timber from the hills down to the sea. The port-sites in this region (Kinet Höyük, Myriandros, Al Mina) presented catchment centers for timbers and commercial hubs linking the inland regions to the sea. The customs list from Elephantine confirms this timber trade through the presence of cedar woods among the goods carried on the Phoenician ships (Yardeni, 1994: 70).

32 2.3.5. Plants

Since the prosperity of Cilicia had been the subject of numerous classical writers, it is worth mentioning the wide variety of plants found in Cilicia as a part of the natural resources of the region. Xenophon (431-354 BC) mentions Cilicia in regard to the expedition of Cyrus as follows: "..a large and beautiful plain, well-watered and full of trees of all sorts and vines; it produces an abundance of sesame, millet, panic[grasses], wheat, and barley, and it is surrounded on every side, from sea to sea, by a lofty and formidable range of mountains"17 (Özbayoğlu, 2003: 159). Crocus sativus, a plant yielding saffron, was abundant in Cilicia and was so famous in antiquity that it was mentioned by Strabo, Ovid, Virgil, Columella, Pliny, Curtius

Rufus, Propertius, and Nonnos (Özbayoğlu, 2003:164-165). We get information about the other famous plants of Cilicia, known by being of best quality, from

Dioscorides of Anazarbus (modern Anavarza): Cyperus rotundus18, Thymus graveolens19, Oinanthe (fruit of the wild vine), Valeriana tuberosa20, Tordylium officinale21, Smyrnium (parsley), Teucrium22 (germander), and Hyssop23. Another plant from Cilicia, which is mentioned both by Dioscorides and Pliny is styrax.

Besides its uses in medicine and perfumes, there is another important use of styrax.

Herodotus states that for the Arabians the only way to collect frankincense is by burning styrax (Herodotus 3.107.2)24. Lastly, helianthes (sun-flower) was mentioned,

17 Anabasis, I,2,22. 18 Cyperus rotundus was mainly used in medicine and perfumes. 19 Thymus graveolens, synonym of Clinopodium graveolens, was mainly used in medicine and food. 20 Valeriana tuberosa (mountain nard) was popular in Cilicia and Syria and used in perfumes. 21 Tordylium officinale (hartwort) was mainly used in medicine. 22 Teucrium was used in medicine. 23 Hyssop, was used as medicine, essential oil and also for flavoring wine, liqueur and honey. 24 "..[The Arabians] They collect frankincense by burning styrax (liquidambar), which the Phoenicians export to Hellas. It is only by burning this substance that they can gather the frankincense, since great numbers of winged serpents which are small and have variegated markings-the very same serpents that go out to invade Egypt-carefully guard each tree. Only the smoke from burning styrax will drive them away from these trees" (Strassler, 2009: 258).

33 which resembles myrtle and after decoction in lion's fat and addition of saffron and palm wine turns into a body ointment (Özbayoğlu, 2003: 166).

Taking into consideration the admiring sayings of the ancient writers, poets, pharmacologists and philosophers on Cilicia's special vegetation, their appraisal of

Cilicia as a known pharmacological and perfume center in the Antiquity, one can expect this region to possess these natural resources in the Middle Iron Age as it did in classical times.

2.3.6. Wool

Wool appears as another item of the Phoenician cargo from Elephantine. Cilician wool is one of the most famous products of Cilicia, being again the subject of ancient writers including Virgil, Varro, Columella, Aristotle, Pliny, and Cicero (Gilroy,

1853: 298-300). The Cilician mountains fostered a kind of horned and shaggy-haired goats, who were shorn like sheep. Their long hair was used in many ways, but mainly to manufacture garments and tents protecting against sun, wind, and humidity. In Exodus, it is stated that the Israelite women weaved the goats'-hair into large pieces and made "curtains of goats' hair" or Saga for their tents (Gilroy, 1853:

302). Due to its thick coat, this goat's hair was very valuable. Callisthenes, the nephew of Aristotle mentions the use of goat-hair for ropes in navigation. Also, due to their durability against the rigors of outdoor life, the cloths made of goat's hair were very suitable for sailors because they resisted the exposure of water (Gilroy,

1853: 300-1). Later, in Roman periods we attest the uses of goat's hair for military purposes, as well. They used the cloths of goats'-hair to cover towers during sieges, because of their high resistance against fire caused by ballista and arrows (Gilroy,

34 1853: 301-2). Procopius in his History of the Wars25 repeated this fact, stated earlier by Servius on Virgil, Georg.iii.313.

2.3.7. Ivory

M.L. Uberti in her review of ivory and bone carving of the Phoenicians refers to

Barnett's proposal that the 9th and 8th centuries BC be called "the Ivory Age of the

Levant" (Uberti, 1999: 463-4). If the ivory objects discovered from Megiddo, Ugarit,

Arslan Tash, Nimrud, Samaria, Carthage, Sardinia, and Ibiza are taken into account, no one can oppose this suggestion. The examples of ivory panels, furniture decorated with ivory, and toilet objects exhibit Phoenician craftsmanship with this material.

Barnett considers the possession of ivory objects as royal monopoly, mainly due to the contexts of these discoveries (Barnett, 1956: 88).

The supply of the raw material for these highly demanded "elite" objects was complicated. The main sources were Asian and African elephants. In addition, there was another group of elephants that we encounter in the texts but due to its blurred definition had been overlooked: the Syrian elephant, so called by Çakırlar and Ikram

(Çakırlar & Ikram, 2016: 1-3). The Syrian elephants descended from the group of

Asian elephants imported into the Levant in the Middle Bronze Age (c.19th-18th centuries BC), with the aim of providing the needed raw materials locally (Çakırlar

& Ikram, 2016: 10, 13). The molar and postcranial remains suggest a living area for the Syrian elephant beginning from the southern foothills of the eastern Taurus in the

25 Procopius is the historian of the eventful reign of Justinian (AD 527-565). History of the Wars, II, XXVI, [28-35], on-line access available by www.gutenberg.org."..They provided screens of goat's hair cloth, of the kind which are called Cilician, making them of adequate thickness and height, and attached them to long pieces of wood which they always set before those who were working on the "agesta"-mound, from Latin agger-. Behind this neither ignited arrows nor any other weapon could reach the workmen, but all of them were thrown back by the screens and stopped there"

35 north and stretching along the Levantine coast, including the Orontes Valley, the

Beqaa Valley, the Euphrates basin and perhaps, the Lower Mesopotamian plain

(Çakırlar & Ikram, 2016: 5, Fig.1, 8). The Syrian elephant, whose extinction was dated to 8th c. BC, left archaeological evidence in Plain Cilicia, also. Among them, we can cite the Iron Age molar and postcranial remains in Kinet Höyük, postcranial remains in Sirkeli Höyük, and Middle Bronze tusks from Tell Atchana, ancient

Alalakh.

As stated throughout the second part of this chapter, Cilicia possessed extractive resources such as metal ores and minerals, living resources such as horses, mules, elephants, and slaves mentioned in the texts (Ezekiel) as important exchange items of the period, and also natural resources including her famous trees and large spectrum of plants. All these commodities and the geostrategic position of Cilicia as a hub both for the caravan routes and also for the sea trade converted Cilicia into a meeting point of different cultures, including Phoenicians, which wanted to benefit from the advantages provided by this region.

The analysis of the material culture of the important Iron Age settlements reveals that Cilicia was more integrated with Cyprus and the Levant than with her neighbors in Anatolia (D'Agata, 2019: 88). Though independent from each other, all these small sites yielded an assemblage of pottery that shares nearly common characteristics: a Cypro-Cilician koine with rare imports from the neighbors

(Greek/Phoenician). In Cilicia, the dominance of Cypro-Cilician pottery throughout the Middle Iron Age cannot be just a coincidence, but must be evaluated in terms of

36 efforts of the cities for constructing a common cultural identity in the region, as suggested also by D'Agata (D'Agata, 2019: 106).

Considering the small amount of Phoenician pottery discovered in the region so far, it is not possible to talk about a permanent settlement or colony of the Phoenicians in the area. Had it been the case, more traces from their daily life would be expected, including daily consumption vessels and religious elements like the sanctuaries and the cemeteries. However, the presence of the Phoenician amphorae, Phoenician inscriptions used in small objects and on monuments, and the Phoenician inspiration on the Karatepe reliefs clearly indicates cultural contacts between the local inhabitants and the Phoenicians. If the essentials of a shared Cypro-Cilician cultural identity can be defined, then it might also provide plausible explanations for the prevalent use of the Phoenician language during the same period in Cilicia.

37

CHAPTER 3

A HISTORICAL EVALUATION OF PLAIN CILICIA IN THE

MIDDLE IRON AGE

The evaluation of the archaeological evidence of the previous chapter revealed that there was a cultural contact between the Cilicians and the Phoenicians during the 8th c. BC. The natural resources of Cilicia and the Phoenician amphorae discovered in the region make us consider the nature of this contact to be mainly commercial.

However, on the basis of the archaeological evidence it is impossible to make further suggestions on the nature of the Phoenician presence in Cilicia. Thus, at this point the historical evidence must be consulted. In this chapter, I would like to present the historical setting of Cilicia during the mid/late 8th c. BC and to see whether the textual evidence points to a Phoenician presence in Cilicia or not. For the visualization of the historical context within which the cultural and material exchanges occurred, the only relevant textual evidence is indirect, provided by the

Neo-Assyrians, the local Neo-Hittite states and Greek writers. Phoenician historical sources are unfortunately lacking.

38 The 9th-7th centuries BC are conveniently (if controversially) referred to as

"orientalizing", a period when the Neo-Assyrians had a westwards expansion policy whereas the Greeks had an eastward one, with Cilicia a middle ground between them. Accordingly, in the first two sections of this chapter, I will discuss the nature of the presence of Neo-Assyrians and Greeks in Cilicia. Taking into account that the

Neo-Assyrian Empire was the dominant power of the region during this period, its political strategies were important for shaping the culture of Cilicia, as well. As for the Greeks, because some scholars suggest the Greeks as responsible for spreading the Phoenician language in Cilicia, knowledge about the scope of their presence in

Cilicia becomes of vital importance, also.

And lastly in this chapter, I will discuss the presence of the Phoenicians in Cilicia on the basis of the ancient texts. Numerous studies discuss Asia Minor as being the landbridge for the "orientalizing" cultural exchange. Together with Asia Minor,

Cyprus, Crete, the Greek islands, and the Argolid are mentioned as geographical intermediaries between the Near East and the Aegean (Dezső & Vér, 2013: 327).

Since these locations are connected with each other by sea, it shouldn't be a surprise to have the main actors of this period being the Phoenicians, the talented seafarers of their time (Röllig, 1992: 93).

3.1. The Presence of Assyrians in Cilicia

The Assyrians, who were aware of the rich sources of raw materials of its northern borders, followed the political situations in their northern sector very closely and interfered in them whenever their interests became at risk. Not only the raw materials but also the geostrategic importance of the region shaped the expansion of Assyrians

39 to the north and west. Dezső analyzed the 1000-km-long Anatolian border of the

Assyrians in four parts: west, northwest, north, and northeast (2018: 128). Following his geographic categorization, the Northern (Ciseuphratene with Nairi and Subria) and Northeastern (Urartu and Urmia region with Ḫubuškia and Mannai) Fronts were important for possessing both the iron deposits mentioned in the work of Maxwell-

Hyslop (1974) and also the horses, which gave the Assyrian army an important comparative advantage in their campaigns. Moreover, the Assyrians wanted to keep their enemies in their defined territories and didn't allow them to expand their territories and/or to form a coalition against the Assyrian power. Though aware that these four fronts were inseparable from each other, and that any change in one of them would reflect itself immediately on the rest, the focus of this thesis is on the other two fronts: the Northwestern Front (Transeuphratene with North Syria,

Gurgum, Kummuh and Meliddu) and the Western Front (Que26, Hilakku, Tabal and

Mušku).

3.1.1. The Northwestern Front

The Northwestern Front, encompassing the Anatolian coastal region west of the

Euphrates as far as the alluvial plain of the Pyramus (Ceyhan) River, had been an

Assyrian interest since the 3rd millennium BC. The cities located in this region were at the crossroads of important Near Eastern commercial and military routes (Dezső,

2018: 148-9). According to the historical evidence, the first Assyrian campaign to the

Transeuphratene region was during the reign of Ashur-nasirpal II (883-859 BC).

After his many brutal campaigns on the Northeastern Front, in 876- 875 BC he tried

26 The historical records distinguish two regions in Cilicia: Que and Hilakku. Que is the Assyrian name of the region Cilicia Pedias, the modern Çukurova. Hilakku is the Assyrian name of the region Cilicia Tracheia, a mountainous region. Scholars locate Hilakku, though with uncertainties, between Que and Tabal in the Taurus Mountains and Bolkar Mountains (Lehmann, 2016: 321).

40 to control also the Northwestern Front in order to reach the Mediterranean Sea,

Lebanon and the Amanus Mountains. Unlike his cruel treatment of the cities in previously controlled regions, Ashur-nasirpal II didn't destroy the Phoenician/

Canaanite cities, but preferred to ask from them high amounts of tribute. The tribute paid to Ashur-nasirpal II by Tyre consisted of gold, silver, tin, linen, monkeys, ebonite, and wooden and ivory chests (Aubet, 1993: 46, 71-Fig.16). The reign of

Ashur-nasirpal II coincides with the reign of Ithobaal I (887-856 BC), during whose reign Tyre became empowered both politically (through marriage alliances, reciprocal gift exchanges with the neighboring powers) and also economically. The dominion of Tyre in the region continued until the end of the 8th c. BC (Aubet, 1993:

37-42).

This initiative of Ashur-nasirpal II, the Assyrians' control over the region, continued during the reign of his successor, Shalmasener III (858-824 BC). Phoenicians continued to pay high tribute, consisting of gold, silver, lead, bronze, wool dyed purple, ivory, and vessels (Aubet, 1993: 46). From the end of Shalmaneser III's reign until the end of the "Stagnation Period"27 (783- 745 BC), there was less pressure from the Assyrians, who were just trying to maintain the status-quo because of their internal problems.

However, the reign of Tiglath-pileser III (745- 727 BC) opened a new era in the history of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Upon ascending the throne, Tiglath-pileser III carried out a range of reforms related to military, political, and administrative issues.

The administrative changes included the reorganization of Assyrian territory into

27 The kings of this period are: 783-773 BC: Shalmaneser IV 772-755 BC: Ashur-dan III 755-745 BC: Ashur-nirari IV

41 provinces, which were governed from an administrative center with an Assyrian governor (such as Til Barsip) instead of relying on vassal agreements with local rulers. Under this new expansionist policy, instead of exploiting through the impositions of tribute, Tiglath-pileser III aimed to achieve administrative control of all the Cilician, North Syrian, Phoenician, and Philistine ports, in other words to control the era's world trade. With four year-long consecutive campaigns (743-740

BC), Tiglath-pileser III restored the Assyrians' control over the whole region, and with the takeover of Unqi in North Syria managed to reach the Mediterranean Sea

(738 BC) (Dezső, 2018: 154). Once Tiglath-pileser III had set foot in the Levantine region, he didn't stop, and at the end of 732 BC he was able to conquer the Southern

Levant, also (Dezső & Vér, 2013: 333). Hereby, Assyrians started to orchestrate the

"world commercial system", with their control of the sea-trade in the Mediterranean, in the Persian Gulf, in the Gulf of Aqaba at the Red Sea, in the Via Maris, and with their control of overland trade in Anatolia and the Silk Route (Dezső & Vér, 2013:

331- Map 1, 333). The special situation of the Phoenician cities during the time of

Tiglath-pileser III will be presented below, in the Phoenician section of this chapter.

And lastly, during the reign of Sargon II (721- 705 BC) we see the continuation of this decisive policy. After the final campaigns of Sargon II to the Northwestern Front in 717 BC to Karkemish, in 712 BC to Meliddu, Kammanu and Til-Garimmu, in 711

BC to Gurgum and 708 BC to Kummuh, the region became an integral part of the

Empire. From then on, during the reigns of the subsequent Assyrian kings

(Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and Assurbanipal) we do not know of any campaigns to the Northwestern Front. The sole focus of the Assyrians became the Western Front.

42 3.1.2. The Western Front

The first campaigns to the territory of Que (Cilicia) were led by Shalmaneser III

(858-824 BC) during the 830s, again with the aim of collecting tribute from the rich lands of Anatolia (Dezső, 2018: 155). Almost a hundred years then passed with the

Assyrians present in the region just for collecting tribute and for preventing the westwards expansion of the Urartians into the region. This fact can well be attested in a text of 730 BC28, which mentions the chief eunuch's visit to Tabal on behalf of

Tiglath-pileser III.

Starting with the Assyrians' access to the sea in 738 BC and their seizing of the

"world trade system", the Western Front -the northern gate of the Levant- became of utmost importance for the Assyrians. The new conjuncture, hindering the free trade of the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Phrygians, gave rise to the attacks of the

Egyptians in the south and in the north in Cilicia to the attacks of the Phrygians and their allies29. Hence, the reign of Sargon II (721-705 BC) is the period that reveals clearly the geostrategic importance of Cilicia. Sargon II launched at least seven campaigns to the region during his reign (718, 715, 713, 712, 709, 708, 705 BC), in order to repulse the Phrygians and Greeks, who were attacking either individually or by making alliances with the other local kingdoms against the Assyrians (Dezső,

2018: 158). The focus of these campaigns was on the Western periphery of the region (Taurus Mountains, Hilakku30, Šinuhtu31, Ḫubušna32) with the aim of

28 http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/rinap/rinap1/Q003460/html Tiglath-pileser III: 47, Rev.14': [U]assurme of the land Tabal acted as if he were the equal of Assyria and he did not come before me. [I sent] a eunuch of mine, the chief [eunuch, to the land Tabal. ...]. I placed [Hu]llî, a commoner (lit."son of a nobody") on his royal throne. [I received] 10 talents of gold, 1,000 talents of silver, 2,000 horses, (and) [...mules as his audience gift]. 29 See below section 3.2. 30 Sargon II had given Hilakku as a dowry-land to Ambaris of Tabal, who was the king of Bit-Purutaš in Tabal, was the son of the previous ruler Hullî, and who was married with the daughter of Sargon II,

43 blocking the roads connecting Tabal and Phrygia to Que and to the sea. Despite the successful campaigns by the Assyrians, the submission of the Phrygians in 709 BC, and the defeat of the Greeks, presumably in Cilicia, in 715 BC, the region remained one of the most troubled sectors of the Empire, and achieved historical notoriety as the place where Sargon II lost his life during his campaign against Tabal in 705 BC

(Dezső, 2018: 158). It should also be noted here, that Cyprus became an Assyrian dominion during the last part of Sargon II's reign (709-708 BC), when Sargon provided his vassal, the king of Tyre with military support for regaining control over the Cypriot vassals (Dezső & Vér, 2013: 338-9).

The campaigns during the reign of Sennacherib (704-681 BC) were mainly for quelling the rebellions in this Assyrian province33. The campaign against Cilicia is dated to 696 BC34. It was conducted against the revolt organized by the governor of

Illubru (Byzantine Lampron, modern Çamlıyayla). The governor of Illubru obtained the help of the people of Hilakku- Ingirâ and Tarzu, identified as Anchialè and

Tarsus, respectively (Elayi, 2018: 100-104). After having defeated the rebels, and in order to punish them, Sennacherib decided to destroy Tarzu and have it rebuilt according to the plan and model of Babylon35 (Dezső & Vér, 2013: 339). The

Ahat- Abisha. However, Ambaris made allies with Phrygians and Urartians against Sargon II. After the campaign of 713 BC, Sargon II conquered Tabal and Hilakku, turned them into an Assyrian province, expelled Ambaris to Assyria and replaced the inhabitants of the region with loyal Assyrians (Elayi, 2017: 101-103). 31 Modern Aksaray, Turkey (Elayi, 2017: 100). 32 Classical Kybistra, near modern Ereğli, Turkey (Lipiński, 1994: 18). 33 There are two different dates for the establishment of the Assyrian province in Cilicia. Fuchs dates this to the reign of Shalmaneser V (726-722 BC), Lemaire and Hawkins to the reign of Sargon II (721-705 BC), with Lemaire to a date between 715-714 BC, and Hawkins to 709 BC (Lehmann, 2016: 321). 34 For the records written after the campaign against the Cilicians in 698 BC, please refer to Luckenbill, 2005: 14, 61-62. 35 For a discussion of Sennacherib's possible motivations for rebuilding Tarsus according to the plan of Babylon, see S. Dalley, "Sennacherib and Tarsus", Anatolian Studies 49 (1999) 73-80.

44 sources mention that Greeks were also involved in this rebellion against the

Assyrians, which will be discussed below in the next section of this chapter.

The attractiveness of the area kept new forces emerging against the Assyrians. After the defeat of the Phrygians, Assyrians armies had to start battling the Cimmerians, a new rising power trying to conquer the land of the Phrygians. Hence, the records belonging to the reigns of Esarhaddon (680-669BC) and Assurbanipal (668-631BC) declare their campaigns against the Cimmerians in Cilicia and their victories over them (Dezső, 2018: 158-9).

In the light of the historical records, it can be said that the Assyrians never stepped back from the policy initiated by Tiglath-pileser III and continued to control this

Assyrian province until the end of Assurbanipal's reign (668-631 BC).

Naturally, this long ascendency of the Assyrians in Cilicia yielded archaeological evidence. It was reviewed by Lehmann in his work of 2016, where he mainly evaluates the findings dated to the Assyrian period from Kinet Höyük and Tarsus.

The main difference between the Middle Iron and the Assyrian period levels at both sites is recognized in the switch from a regional cultural assemblage to an intrusive

Assyrian one. It includes a shift from an assemblage dominated by painted Cypriot and Cypro-Cilician style ceramics to a new assemblage, composed of locally made undecorated utilitarian types, many imitating an Assyrian repertoire. Phoenician and

Greek imports are rare, and Cypriot styles disappear almost entirely (Lehmann,

2016: 325). Other footprints of Assyrians can be observed in the Assyrian-style cylinder seals discovered both in Kinet Höyük and Tarsus (along with stamp seals in

45 other styles). Also, the faunal evidence from the Assyrian period levels of Kinet

Höyük points to other changes in the local lifestyle, suggesting that its population was not familiar with the marine environment of the site, and introduced equids in unprecedented numbers (Lehmann, 2016: 328). Until now, there are no Assyrian- style burials in Cilicia, nor have any Assyrian-style buildings been reported.

3.2. The Presence of Greeks in Cilicia

Greeks and Greek speakers represent another non-Cilician group whose involvement in Iron Age Cilicia has been cited as possible agent in importing the Phoenician language into the region (Yakubovich, 2015). Two issues contribute to this proposal: first, that Greek colonies already existed here during the Iron Age; and secondly, the dynastic tradition of Cilician rulers in the 8th c. BC, which may refer to Hesiodic legend. Their bilingual inscriptions from Çineköy and Karatepe link them to a founder MPS, associated by philologists with the Mopsos dynasty of Greek mythology. For these two reasons, it becomes crucial to determine the nature of

Greek presence in Cilicia. The main question to be explored in this section is whether the Greeks of the 8th c. BC, even if they knew and used the Phoenician language, had the capacity to spread it. Again, for the scope of their presence I will refer to the archaeological and textual evidence respectively.

To begin my discussion here with the popular hypothesis of a Homeric-era Greek migration to Cilicia, during the late 2nd millennium BC, this idea has occupied the agenda of many scholars for a long time. Its most important basis was the discovery in the region of Mycenaean (LH IIIC) and Mycenaean-type pottery dated to the 12th c. BC (Salmeri, 2003: 268). This pottery, and by extension actual Mycenaeans were

46 then associated with the ancestral story of the 8th c. BC ruling "House of MPS".

However, in the light of new studies, the Mycenaean hypothesis today hardly finds any supporters. The pottery discovered in Tarsus and Kazanlı Höyük36 was re- examined by Anna Lucia D'Agata and interpreted as a sign of small-scale contacts between individual sites, not the result of a significant Aegean Late Bronze migration (Salmeri, 2003: 269).

A similar localized pattern can be observed a few centuries later in the northern

Levant; in the Syro-Phoenician coastal centers north of Byblos, such as Ras el-

Bassit, Tabbat al-Hamman, Sukas, Ras ibn Hani, but especially at Al Mina

(Lanfranchi, 2000: 9-10). Following Haider, Lanfranchi states that Greek pottery began to appear at Ras el-Bassit in the late 10th c. BC, at Tabbat al-Hammam in the mid-9th c. BC, at Sukas and Ras ibn Hani in the 8th c. BC, and lastly at Al Mina in the mid-8 th c. BC. Taking into account these suggested dates for the appearance of

Greek pottery at these centers, the Greeks' interest in the area and their trade relations with its inhabitants started earlier than the dominance of the Neo-Assyrian Empire in the region. However, the Pax Assyriaca (so called by Lehmann) of the second half of the 8th c. BC brought drastic changes in this relationship, as might be expected. The impact of Assyrian expansion can be traced in the differences of the Greek pottery assemblages before and after the Assyrian control of the area. Until the mid-8th c.

BC they remained very few and are mostly of high quality, signaling a trade concerning the local élites; whereas after the mid-8th c. BC they increased in number but decreased in quality, comprised mainly of items related to household table wares.

36 Kazanlı Höyük36: ca. 11 km east of modern-day Mersin, and 17 km west of Tarsus, roughly located on the ancient/modern road connecting these two cities.

47 Among these sites, special importance has been given to Al Mina, which yielded the greatest number and proportion of Greek pottery, and thus makes scholars speculate on the possible presence of Greeks there (Luraghi, 2006: 27-29). Boardman attributed the origins of Al Mina Greek pottery mostly to the island of Euboea with a much smaller percentage from the Cyclades and the Greek cities of Asia Minor.

Other than these Greek imports, there were also imitations of Greek pottery known as Al Mina Ware. Although Al Mina Ware was long considered to be locally made by the Greek potters working at Al Mina, new clay analyses point to their production center as Eastern Cyprus: these imitations of Euboean drinking cups were thus

Cypriot imports (Vacek, 2020: 1176).

The Euboean connection, with its active involvement in trade during the 8th c. BC and its leading role in Greek colonization was not a surprise to scholars. And Al

Mina, with its geostrategic location37 within the borders of the prosperous kingdom of Unqi/Patin was very attractive for Euboeans because of its supply of worked and unworked metal, dyed cloth, and jewelry (Braun, 1982: 12-14). Braun thinks that the

Euboeans, in return, might have supplied the region with slaves obtained by kidnapping or raiding. Within this context a close link between trade and piracy was established. Concordantly, the way the Greeks are presented in the Assyrian texts is beyond ordinary traders.

Coming back to Cilicia, after quelling the rebellion in Cilicia during his reign (696

BC) and definitely consolidating the Assyrian control in the territory, Sennacherib

37 With its location c.1.8 km inland from the present-day shoreline on the Orontes river, connecting the Amuq plain with sea, Al Mina during the Iron Age was fulfilling the same function as the earlier port of Sabuniye, which served Alalakh, the capital of the kingdom of Mukish in the Bronze Age Amuq (Vacek, 2020: 1165, 1175).

48 (704-681 BC) legitimized the presence of the Greeks in the region, which is also attested by the increasing amount of Greek pottery in Tarsus and Mersin as the result of an increased Greek population (Lanfranchi, 2000: 10). The same pattern, the start of favoring Greek traders, can be observed on the North Syrian coasts, which has been explained by Lanfranchi as a sign of Assyrians' will to reduce their dependency on Phoenician maritime trade (Lanfranchi, 2000: 20-21).

This short discussion of the archaeological evidence during the 10th and 7th centuries BC supports Kuhrt's argument that the comparative backwardness and poverty of Greece entailed a policy to follow the rich and powerful cities of the Near

East closely and to be in continuous contact with them (Kuhrt, 2002: 17). The assemblage of the pottery from different periods demonstrates that their involvement in the region and the intensity of their contacts were changing according to the developments in the Assyrian Empire, Egypt, Urartu, the Phoenician cities, and the small Syro-Palestinian kingdoms.

Further insights on Greek involvement in the 8th century BC can be found in the written documentation, which consists primarily of Assyrian historical texts. In the

Assyrian sources, the Greeks were indiscriminately called Ionians. The first reference to Ionians in the Assyrian texts was seen in the letter (NL 69) sent by an

Assyrian provincial officer, or more likely, a high-ranking military officer in charge of relations with the kingdom of Tyre, named Qurdi-Aššur-lamur, to Tiglath-pileser

III, probably around 738-732 BC. In the letter, Qurdi-Aššur-lamur informs the king about the Ionians' attacks on three cities in Phoenicia; Samsimuruna, Harisu, and a third one whose name was not preserved (Luraghi, 2006: 30-31; Kuhrt, 2002: 18).

49 Later, in many inscriptions dated to the reign of Sargon II (721-705 BC), the Ionians are compared to fishes and king Sargon II to a fisherman. This textual evidence defines the Ionians as people who operated in the eastern Mediterranean and attacked probably both ships and coastal settlements, in other words acted as pirates, sometimes for their own interest directly, at other times for the collective benefit of the allies (Luraghi, 2006: 32; Kuhrt, 2002: 19).

The Annals of Sargon II belonging to the year 715 BC present the Ionians attacking the Phoenicians and Cilicians. During the campaign of Sargon II to Cilicia in 715

BC, the Ionians became allies of Midas, the king of Phrygia. Here, special attention must be given to the relationship between the Phrygians and the Ionians. Based on the classical sources, it can be said that it was more than a convergence of local interests. Midas very carefully planned this relationship and turned it into an effective political and economic alliance38. According to his Annals39, in order to beat the Ionians, Sargon II most probably received the support of Phoenicians. A fragmentary wall- painting from Til-Barsip, illustrating the Assyrians in a naval battle on a Phoenician warship against an unknown enemy might be a visual proof of this fact (Dezső & Vér, 2013: 336; Thureau-Dangin, F & Dunand, M, 1936: frontispiece, 71-2).

Despite the subjugation of Midas in 709 BC, the reign of Sennacherib (704-681 BC) again seems to witness attacks by Ionians in Cilicia. It is widely stated that during the

38 In order to get cooperation of the Ionians, Midas married a Greek princess, sent his own throne to the Delphian Apollo as a gift and increased trade relations with the West-Ionia- (Lanfranchi, 2000: 19-20). 39 "In order to [conquer the Ionians, who live] in the midst of the sea, who since long [in the past] used to kill the inhabitants [of the city] of Tyre (and) [of the land] of Que and to interrupt commercial traffic, I attacked them at sea [with ships from the land of] Hatti and destroyed them all, big and small, with my weapon." (Luraghi, 2006: 31, based on the work of Fuchs in 1994).

50 campaign of 696 BC in Cilicia different groups of Greeks were present in the anti-

Assyrian coalition: South-Anatolian and Cypriot Greeks, and/or Carians and Lydians

(Dezső & Vér, 2013: 339). The uncertainty about the presence of Greeks and if present, the nature of the relationship between Assyrians and Greeks in Cilicia, stems from two different versions of classical sources40 mentioning this campaign, and also, the absence of reliable Assyrian texts about it. Additionally, in these different versions of classical sources we note both the use of "the Greeks" and "the Ionians", without assurance whether the term "Ionian" designates "Greek" (Kuhrt, 2002: 20).

Nevertheless, with the help of a fragmentary passage in one of the Bull Inscriptions of Sennacherib, scholars are able to accept with more or less certainty the clash between the Assyrians and the Greeks during the reign of Sennacherib (704-681 BC)

(Lanfranchi, 2000: 28). The Bull Inscription states that, during his sixth campaign, captive Ionians were enrolled as sailors in the Assyrian riverine fleet, following

Assyrian practice.

In the light of the textual record, we can be sure about the involvement of the Ionians in Cilicia during the 8th and 7th centuries BC. However, the extent and nature of their involvement is another subject of dispute, which should also be briefly reviewed. Some scholars, such as L.W.King, J.D.Bing and A.M.Jasink, believe in the presence of Greek colonies in this period in Cilicia, particularly at Tarsus. Bing's idea of a Rhodian colony of Lindos in Tarsus during this period mainly derives from the Rhodian pottery (Late Geometric) found in Tarsus and Mersin (Lanfranchi, 2000:

29). Likewise, based on the information provided by Strabo, there is a tendency to

40 One version was provided by Alexander Polyhistor, based on the Babyloniaka of Berossus, who lived in Babylon under Antiochus I.Polyhistor mentions a land battle with the Greeks. The other version was provided by Abydenus, again based on the Babyloniaka of Berossus, where Abydenus stated a sea battle with the Ionians. The differences might have come from the abridging of the texts, translation and interpretation mistakes/differences (Lanfranchi, 2000: 24-29; Kuhrt, 2002: 19-20).

51 recognize Soloi as a Rhodian, or preferably Lindian, colony, too (Lanfranchi, 2000:

29; Salmeri, 2003: 269). However, opponents mention that the amount and proportion of Rhodian pottery in Tarsus (and Mersin) cannot suggest the presence of a colony, but rather a very small commercial entity, an emporium (Lanfranchi, 2000:

29, note 97; Keen & Fischer-Hansen, 2004: 1214). Similar material found in Kinet

Höyük, where imitations of Aegeanizing pottery were produced locally or in the neighboring area, supports the existence of processes of acculturation in the region rather than Greek settlement (Salmeri, 2003: 270). The absence of Greek onomastics on the Assyrian tablets at Tarsus provides another argument against Greek colonies in the region. So, taking into consideration archaeological evidence that does not support a locally settled population of Ionians (that is: Greek colonies) in Cilicia during the 8th c. BC, the reason for their fight against the Assyrians couldn't be to protect their territory. Thus, Lanfranchi and Luraghi, like Braun, explain the presence of the Greeks in the region and their participation in the anti-Assyrian alliances on other grounds: trade, mercenaries, and piracy.

The archaeological evidence for the presence of Greeks in the region, which I discussed earlier in this section, shows that the involvement of the Greeks in the eastern Mediterranean underwent a visible change throughout the dominion of the

Assyrians in the region. After the mid-8th c. BC, following the Pax Assyriaca, the

Greeks continued trade relationships with Cilicia and the Northern Levant, which were privileged areas in the new Assyrian world. The scenario presented by

Lanfranchi relates this new order to the increasing presence of Ionian warships in the eastern Mediterranean, which escorted commercial ships on their routes to and from the western markets (Lanfranchi, 2000: 30). The anti- Assyrian forces might have

52 profited from this steady presence of Ionians in the region by employing them as

Greek mercenaries, whenever they needed support. Thus, there is a high probability to see these same Greek people, mostly from Euboea and the Cyclades, acting variously as pirates or traders or mercenaries, depending on the prevailing conditions.

Ionian pirates in the region needed bases. Nagidos and Kelenderis on the west

Cilician coast seem the best candidates for them in Cilicia (Luraghi, 2006: 32). We should note here that there is no inscriptional or other evidence for a formal settlement of Greeks in Nagidos or Kelenderis during the 9th and 8th centuries BC.

During this period, these temporary settlement locations must have been used just for sheltering and water-supply. The earliest reference to Kelenderis' formal status as a

Greek city (polis) dates to the late 5th c. BC (Keen & Fischer-Hansen, 2004: 1218-

9). Its references to a Samian foundation are all from Roman writers. Nagidos, like its eastern neighbor Kelenderis, is also identified as a possible Samian foundation.

However, the earliest evidence for this city is from the 5th c. BC, as well ((Keen &

Fischer-Hansen, 2004: 1219-20).

Kearsley's work at Al Mina supports the views of Luraghi and Lanfranchi on the nature of Greek presence in the area. Kearsley interpreted the change in the pottery assemblages as a sign of a transition between an early mercenary encampment and a settlement characterized by commercial activity (Dezső & Vér, 2013: 341). The majority of scholars consider that this port of trade at the mouth of the Orontes was eventually occupied mainly by Greeks, Phoenicians, and Cypriots (Salmeri, 2003:

270).

53 Starting from the 7th c. BC onwards, the presence of Greek mercenaries in the eastern Mediterranean is quite well documented in texts (Luraghi, 2006: 35; Dezső &

Vér, 2013: 340). They could be observed fighting pro or contra the Assyrians in the

Levant, Egypt, Judah or Anatolia. They also could be noticed as taking part in both sides of the same battle, a case clearly reflecting the motivations of the mercenaries.

Textual evidence reports them taking active part in Esarhaddon's (680-669 BC) campaigns in Cilicia (Dezső & Vér, 2013: 342). Their archaeological presence can also be observed in the same occupational pattern as earlier with al Mina: for instance at Naukratis in Egypt (Fantalkin, 2006: 202). Despite the ongoing discussions on whether Naukratis was a trading emporium or a mercenary garrison, scholarly consensus favors a military function. The sudden and massive appearance of East Greek pottery on the coastal plain of Israel toward the end of the 7th c. BC is likewise attributed to the Greek mercenaries (Carian, Lydian, and Ionian) employed in the army of Psammetichus I (664-610 BC).

Finally, Greek mercenaries' earlier engagement in the Assyrian army can be adduced from the discovery of Near Eastern objects on Cyprus, the Greek islands and also the mainland of Greece (Luraghi, 2006: 36-42; Dezső & Vér, 2013: 343-7). Although the discussion of these objects is beyond the scope of this thesis, I would like to mention two of them. The first is a silver bowl from a chamber tomb near the

Cypriot city of Amathus, dated to the early years of the period from 710-675 BC. It was likely made by a Phoenician craftsman based in Cyprus. The outer register of the concentric decoration shows a siege scene where Assyrians, Greeks, and

Phoenicians, identified by their different regalia and weaponry, besiege a Cypriot

54 town41. This object is very important in showing the earliest depiction of a hoplite phalanx and providing essential evidence for the Greek hoplites fighting in the

Levant in the late 8th c. BC.

The second object is a bronze horse frontlet in North Syrian style with an Aramaic inscription42 on it, recovered from the Heraion on Samos. The inscription attributes it to Hazael (842-796 BC), the king of Aram (Damascus), herewith giving the opportunity to scholars to suggest its origin as the royal treasury of Hazael. He conducted a military campaign into Unqi and its capital Tayinat Kunulua, and according to the inscription that is where this frontlet was taken as booty. A reasonable scenario would propose that during Tiglath-pileser III's campaign to

Damascus in 732 BC, a Greek mercenary in the Assyrian army took it in turn as booty and put it into circulation. Horse trappings of the same style from Eretria and from Miletos have also been interpreted as spoils of eastern wars, like the bronze horse frontlet dedicated to the goddess Hera on Samos.

That the Greeks from the very beginning were only interested in securing their share of the eastern Mediterranean's wealth and its economic system has gained increasing scholarly acceptance. They can be observed in trading activities, either as traders or as pirates, and supplied professional manpower. The most important sphere in need of Greeks was the military, while the employment of Greek craftsmen, philosophers, and doctors was common, as well (Kuhrt, 2002: 17).

41 The object is in British Museum. The full drawing can be reached from the following address: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k62022979/f343.image 42 "That which Hadad gave our lord Hazael from ‘Unqi in the year that our lord crossed the river." (Luraghi, 2006: 39).

55 The Greek presence in Cilicia during the 9th and 8th centuries BC can be explained in these terms. The Greeks were benefiting from natural harbors like Nagidos and

Kelenderis, using them as their bases or shelters for their seaborne activities. The clash between Assyrians and Greeks in Cilicia should likewise be recognized as a professional engagement. As mercenaries for anti-Assyrian allies, their actions shouldn't be taken as a direct sign of hostility towards the Assyrians themselves.

To conclude, the nature of their presence in Middle Iron Age Cilicia makes it unlikely that the Greeks had the capacity to disseminate the Phoenician language there, even if I assume they knew and were using the Phoenician language. To influence the local culture required a more structured and formal society of Cilician

Greeks who already knew Phoenician, and especially scribes. However, the archaeological evidence cannot support the presence of a social entity like a Greek colony in Cilicia during the 9th and 8th centuries BC. On the contrary, it points to a sporadic and temporary presence of Greeks in the region at this time.

3.3. Phoenicians in Cilicia and in their larger eastern Mediterranean Context

Questions concerning the presence of Phoenicians in Cilicia were mainly initiated by the discoveries of monumental inscriptions in Phoenician in the region, mentioned in the first chapter. Since the oldest archaeological evidence -coming from Zincirli- dates to 825 BC, scholars begin their discussion about the presence of the

Phoenicians with the 9th c. BC. Archaeological evidence shows the use of

Phoenician language along with the local language. In addition to the Çineköy and

Karatepe inscriptions, a decontextualized group of Phoenician seals, studied by

Lemaire (1977), can be presented as another good example for this bilingualism. The

56 owners of these seals have Luwian names, whose ownerships were affirmed by the presence of the term HBRK, translated as "the blessed", but the seals have Phoenician legends (Jasink & Bombardieri, 2008: 41). The importance given to the Phoenician language can be traced very well in the hieroglyphic Luwian inscription from

Carchemish, where Yariris, the ruler of Carchemish in the first part of the 8th c. BC, when indicating his literacy in four scripts, mentions "Tyrian script" as the second, right after the local one (Lipiński, 1985: 82). At the same time, this inscription is important for revealing Tyre's prominence among the Phoenician cities.

The close relation with Tyre can be corroborated with the stela which was discovered at Brayj near Aleppo and dated around 800 BC. The stela was erected by King Bar-

Hadad and dedicated to Melqart, the city god of Tyre (Lehmann, 2008: 221). Lastly, the cylinder-seal with bilingual inscription in Phoenician and Luwian, studied by

Dupont-Sommer (1950-51), bearing Tyrian personal names reinforces this case

(Lehmann, 2008: 219).

Based on the Assyrian annals, Kestemont states that there was a Phoenician harbor installation at Myriandros, exact location uncertain, near the modern İskenderun, on the gulf of the same name (Kestemont, 1985: 135). Its location controlled access to

Cilicia and especially inland to the Euphrates.

Another text, the so-called "Seal of Dagan-milki", shows the involvement of

Phoenicians in trade activities, this time inland. It comes from Kuyunjik (Nineveh) and is dated to 709 BC, coinciding with the reign of Sargon II (722-705 BC).

Lipiński suggests that the slave trade it concerns was taking place in the North-

57 Western Province of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, most probably in the Gozan-Harran area (Lipiński, 1985: 84-89)43. The text contains many names that stem from different origins: Israelite, Phoenician, and Aramaean. Of these, Lipiński attributed the name of the scribe (Tabnî), the names of some witnesses (Ahîram, and probably

Bin-Dikir), the name of the seller (Dagan-milki), and the name of one slave (Milki- uri) to a Phoenician origin. Moreover, the same names- the buyer Summa-ilani, the seller Dagan-milki, the scribe Tabnî, the village inspector Paqah- appear in other contemporary trade related texts with different roles, as well. Along with the contents of these texts, the onomastic evidence suggests an active involvement of Phoenician merchants in the slave traffic of the region.

In addition to the Assyrian texts, Classical sources such as Homer and Herodotus also refer to the Phoenicians' slave trade. These include the stories of Eumeus and

Ulysses in the Odyssey; and Io, the daughter of the Argive king Inacus, who according to Herodotus was kidnapped by Phoenicians and taken to Egypt (Moscati,

1968: 87).

This epigraphical and literary evidence for the presence of Phoenicians in Cilicia and its neighbors has been explained by their expansionist policy in pursuit of raw materials and also for new markets. In seeking the motives for their presence away from their homeland during the 8th and 7th centuries BC, the coincidence between the dates of the appearance of Phoenicians and of the decisive campaigns of Neo-

43 The seller Dagan-milki sells to Summa-ilani three slaves for 3 minas of silver according to the mina of Karkemish. In case of dispute, x minas of silver and 1 mina of gold should be given to Ishtar of Arbela. This trade activity had been witnessed by many people including the scribe, village inspector, rein holder.

58 Assyrians attracts attention. In my opinion-and I am not alone44- Susan

Frankenstein's suggestion that during the 8th and 7th centuries BC the trade activities of Phoenician cities involved two dimensions still preserves its validity. Phoenicians, taking advantage of being superior seafarers, besides conducting free-trade activities directly for their own interests, were also functioning as commercial agents for the

Neo-Assyrian Empire (Frankenstein, 1979: 263). Fantalkin and Finkelstein, accepting the suggestion of Frankenstein for Phoenicians acting as commercial agents of the Neo-Assyrians, took it much further, and dated the beginning of this role of Phoenicians to the reign of Hazael (842-796 BC), where on his request the

Phoenicians took over the monopolization of copper trade from Cyprus (Fantalkin &

Finkelstein, 2006: 31).

Frankenstein continues her suggestions with attributing the rise of the "empires" in the Near East to their success in taking advantage of controlling this geostrategic region. Therefore, the review of the relationship between the Phoenician cities and the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the 9th-7th centuries BC becomes crucial for having a grasp of the ongoing trade and military activities. Furthermore, due to being a continuous threat to the Assyrian Empire and thus, constituting one of the reasons of Assyrians' presence in the area, the relation of the Egyptian Empire with these coastal cities is of tantamount importance. Although the Assyrians and the

Egyptians, due to their larger sphere of influence, deserve most of our attention, the roles of relatively smaller kingdoms of the region, such as the Israelites45, shouldn't be neglected.

44 Fantalkin, 2006: 200. 45The textual evidence for the beginning of a trade alliance between Phoenicians and Israelites had been for a long time (and for some scholars still is) the references of Hiram I of Tyre and David/Solomon of Israel in the Old Testament. However, the work of Finkelstein and Silberman in

59 Moscati described the prominent riches of the Phoenician cities (Moscati, 1968: 82-

87). Accordingly, they were cultivating cereals, planting vines, olives, figs, date palms, and pomegranate. Phoenician lands were rich in cedar and fir forests, which constituted the main export items to Egyptians and Assyrians. Textiles and coloured garments of the Phoenicians were very much in demand, especially by the Assyrians.

Phoenician glass and ivory objects were much sought after by the elites of the period.

In addition to these, the number of skilled craftsmen in various sectors and their control of the commercial activities of the region were factors, which put Phoenician cities into a privileged position.

The special status of Phoenician cities could easily be observed in the Assyrians' treatment towards them. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, Ashur-nasirpal II (883-

859 BC), while conducting very brutal campaigns throughout the Near East, didn't destroy the Phoenician cities, and preferred to make tribute agreements with the king of Tyre, Ithobaal I (887-856 BC). The same treatment continued during the reign of

Shalmaneser III (858-824 BC).

For the policies of Phoenician cities towards the Assyrians in return, the battle of

Qarqar (854/3 BC) during Shalmaneser III's reign appears to provide the necessary information. At the battle of Qarqar, except for Tyre and Sidon, almost all the coastal cities entered into an alliance against the Assyrians (Oded, 1974: 41-2). This battle presents explicitly the policy of Tyre and Sidon; as long as their vital interests were

2001, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, brought new spirit into academic life, where the biblical evidence was questioned in the light of archaeological evidence, and anachronisms contained in the Bible were displayed. Although the effect of the relationship between Phoenicians and Israelites has been estimated to be very minor and indirect upon the Phoenician activities in Cilicia, being aware of the low Iron Age chronology could be useful in the correct reconstruction of Tyre's economy during 11th/10th centuries BC (Fantalkin, 2006: 200).

60 not at threat, they refrained from wars. The relationship between the Phoenicians and the Assyrians, restricted to impositions of tribute-though increasing day by day46- and trade, continued until the reign of Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 BC).

The reign of Tiglath-pileser III was full of military actions, which exactly supported

Frankenstein's aforementioned strategy for the development and maintenance of the empires. Tiglath-pileser III, with the aim of controlling the whole trade in the region he ruled, conquered firstly, during 743-738 BC, the northern cities on the Phoenician coast and included them into Assyrian provinces, claiming Şimirra47 as the town of the governor and appointing his son Shalmaneser V to govern that province (Oded,

1974: 42-47). Secondly, Tiglath-pileser III, during 734-732 BC, dominated the southern coast of Phoenicia and the coast of Palestine down to Gaza. The historical evidence clearly states that Tiglath-pileser III did not incorporate Tyre into the

Assyrian provincial system, but instead continued to impose tribute.

This continuing privileged treatment of Tyre by the Assyrians, despite the later participation of her king in the rebellion against them48, was mainly due to their reservations against disturbing the powerfully organized sea trade and thus causing economic loss for their Empire. Instead, they preferred to exploit the maritime economy of the coasts to the fullest via intensification of their control on Tyre and

Sidon, a fact documented in the related Nimrud letters (Oded, 1974: 47-48). The letter XII (ND 2715), written by the king to his officer Qurdi-Aššur-lamur, and his

46 Adad-Nirari III (811-783 BC) received twenty times more than Shalmaneser III from the Phoenician cities (Aubet, 1993: 70). He mainly received gold, silver and ivory. 47 The southern border of Şimirra was north of the city-state of Byblos (Oded, 1974: 43-4). 48 The fragmentary inscription ND 4301+ 4305 states: "[...H]iram of Tyre who conspired with Rezin...the town Mahalab, his stronghold, together with great towns, I conquered. Spoil [...]"etc (Oded, 1974: 46).

61 response to the king clearly reveal that the felling of cedar trees from Mount

Lebanon was subject to tax impositions, and Tyre and Sidon's cedar trade with foreign countries was strictly controlled by Assyrians in parallel with their political and economic interests (Oded, 1974: 48; Dezső & Vér, 2013: 355). Again, from these letters we are informed that this control was assured by the Assyrian army based there, and that the Assyrians intervened very much in the administration of Tyre. The extent of control of the Neo-Assyrian Empire was so great that in exchange of enormous tribute -150 talents of gold- they enthroned Metenna (Matan) as the king of Tyre, after Hiram II (Oded, 1974: 49). This economic strategy of Tiglath-pileser

III continued until the end of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.

The expansionist policy of the Neo-Assyrian Empire changed the scope of the trade activities of Tyre. On the one hand they brought quotas49 to the tradable commodities, which they perceived as strategic goods for the Neo-Assyrian Empire, which included cedar beams, iron, valuables such as (semi) precious stones, and slaves; on the other hand with the imposition of high tribute to Tyre, they forced

Phoenicians to search for new markets (Dezső & Vér, 2013: 355-9). At first, the

Phoenicians started to exploit the closer regions, like Cilicia for the sources of raw materials which were very high in demand by the Assyrians, iron for their army in particular, with silver, gold and bronze sought in lesser amounts (Aubet, 1993: 74).

In the search for more resources, in time they expanded their territory of trade into the western Mediterranean. Actually, for expert seafarers like Phoenicians, this situation provided an advantage over their competitors. While meeting the demands of the Assyrians for tribute, Phoenicians, enjoying the stability provided by Pax

49 Sometimes they totally prohibited their exchange.

62 Assyriaca, were also involving themselves in free-trade with many countries including the Mesopotamian cities.

The most important textual evidence for the trading partners of the Phoenicians and the commodities subjected to trade, despite the controversies about its writer, content and dating50, is the second part of Ezekiel's chapter 27: A Lamentation over the Fall of Tyre (Aubet, 1993: 100-1, 306-9). The text includes all the items in which the

Phoenicians were commercially interested and traded, in a region covering Anatolia,

Cyprus, Northern Syria, Syro-Palestine, Egypt, Arabia, and Mesopotamia. In verses

12-2451, also some regions of Anatolia were mentioned. Accordingly, Javan (the

Greek islands, Cyprus and the Cilician coast), Tubal (Tabal), Meshech52

(Mušku/Phrygia) supplied slaves and bronze implements (v13), and the people of

Beth-togarmah (probably parts of eastern Turkey, Armenia and northwestern Iran) supplied horses, chargers and mules (v14). Later in the text, in verse 19 the regions of Anatolia (Dan/Adaniya and Javan/Ionia) are mentioned again, as being involved in iron and spice trade with the Phoenicians.

To conclude this chapter, I would like to emphasize that the historical evidence of a region like Cilicia, homeland of ancient civilizations, rich in highly demanded raw materials and goods, and having geostrategic importance both for land and sea routes, desired by all kingdoms/empires, cannot be evaluated only on a local scale.

While interpreting the local changes, the development of external factors should also

50 There is an increasing consensus on its dating to the 6th c BC with the probability of relating the events of the 8th c BC. 51 v13: Javan, Tubal and Meshech traded with you. For your merchandise they bartered men and bronze implements. v14: The people of Beth-togarmah traded you horses, chargers, mules. v19: Dan and Javan, from Uzal onwards, supplied you with wrought iron, cassia and calamus in exchange for your goods. 52 Some scholars identified it with the biblical Mişraim, from where Solomon acquired horses in the 10th c. BC.

63 be taken into account. Especially, during the Iron Age, where a "money economy" started to emerge and the importance of "economic power" in the maintenance of kingdoms/empires had been realized, Neo-Assyrians blazing the trail in these improvements, a change in a remote corner might lead to unforeseen consequences in another corner. Winter, for example, based on the content of a tablet53 from

Nimrud, dated to 748 BC, stated the shortage in metal wealth (silver) as a reason for a weak economy in Assyria in that period. Levine, based on the same text, went further and related the Stagnation Period of the Neo-Assyrian Empire to the alliance between the kingdom of Urartu and the North Syrian states, which enabled Urartu to control trade to the west and deprived Tyrian merchants of access to the Anatolian metals (Winter, 1973: 123). A similar case is detected with the Greeks. The expansionist policy of the Assyrians and their favor towards Phoenicians as their commercial agents during the 8th century BC isolated the Greeks from the ongoing trade world and let them work as pirates, of necessity.

Lastly, I would like to stress the importance of contextual memory of locations.

While discussing the presence of Greeks in Cilicia in the previous section of this chapter, Kelenderis was mentioned as one of the potential bases for Greek pirates operating in the eastern Mediteranean. Beal, based on his analysis of the content of the Neriglissar Chronicle, suggests Kelenderis to be the most likely candidate for the location of Ura (Beal, 1992: 65-73). Scholars state that in the Hittite period Ura was an important port where the merchants were successfully conducting their trade with the inhabitants from Ugarit (Beal, 1992: 66). So, taking into account the possible transfer of local memory, the people of Kelenderis and people inhabiting the land of

53 Interest of 400% was charged on the loan of a mina of silver.

64 Ugarit during the Iron Age can be expected to have been very much aware of each other, and also their possession of wealth and opportunities. And, if we broaden this concept, it shouldn't be surprising to see Iron Age Cilicia preserving a geopolitical importance which was already renowned from the Bronze Age.

65

CHAPTER 4

THE MEDITERRANEAN: ON ITS OWN AND OTHERS AS

CONNECTORS

In the previous chapters the human actor was in the center of the discussions, either in the form of archaeological evidence produced and transmitted by him/her or in the form of historical evidence mentioning him/her. However, a research on the relationship between the Cilicians and the Phoenicians cannot leave out the discussion of the Mediterranean Sea itself. Taking into account Abulafia's work

(2005) on the "Mediterraneans", where he prefers to broaden the use of the term

Mediterranean as including any empty space between lands (whether sea or desert), the role of the Mediterranean Sea in bringing the different societies into contact and its effect on the transformation of the societies will be the focus of this chapter. We will see how the nature of the Mediterranean Sea contributed to the active presence of the Phoenicians in the region and also how the context of other "Mediterraneans" serves as natural environments for cultural exchange and multilingualism.

4.1. Maritime Trade:

Starting from the Bronze Age onwards, the Mediterranean provided cost and speed advantages (decrease in transport time) for those who were able to conduct sea trade.

66 These advantages were better visible in the transport of heavy goods in open-sea trade (Bresson, 2005: 95; Panagiotopoulos, 2011: 37-8). However, enjoying the high profits of the seaborne trade necessitated an ability to control the high risks involved in this type of trade, which brought the Phoenicians and the Greeks to the fore

(Bresson, 2005: 102). Although there were many factors influencing the success of the maritime trade, such as the sailing season, wind conditions, the route, the type of ship, and the weight of the cargo, research on the maritime trade in the Bronze and

Iron Age emphasizes the crew's experience as the most crucial factor. Despite the instinctive belief in seasonality of the sea trade and some textual evidence54 pointing out its presence indeed, the risks involved in wintertime and night-time sailing could substantially be avoided with the seamanship skills and local knowledge, which the

Phoenicians and the Greeks already had (Knapp and Demesticha, 2017: 9-10).

The Phoenicians stand out with their knowledge in shipbuilding, as well. The annals of Sennacherib (704-681 BC) state the use of Tyrian, Sidonian, and Cypriot sailors both for building ships for the King's fleet and for floating them down the Tigris to

Opis (Luckenbill, 2005: 14). Their easy access to the raw materials (cedar trees) and the craftsmanship they acquired through the years provided the Phoenicians with the means for becoming experts in the shipbuilding process. However, these factors of production were not enough to create an output, unless they were supported by the necessary capital and the entrepreneurship. The Phoenicians, by possessing both the capital and the required motivation, could shine amongst others as "professionals", who also were able to produce bigger size ships that were needed for long-distance

54 Knapp and Demesticha, 2017: 4 ..wait until the sailing season arrives, and then drag your swift boat down to the sea, arrange the cargo in it and get it ready so that you can bring the profit home. (Hesiod, Works and Days, 630-632)

67 trade (Bresson, 2005: 104). In this point, we observe interactivity between the short- distance trade and open-sea trade. The accumulated profit from the short-distance trade was invested by the Phoenicians in their development on the open-sea trade, a fact which enabled these leading actors of short- distance trade to secure their position in the open-sea trade, as well. As for their entrepreneurship, their main motivation might be mentioned as the pursuit for new sources of raw materials. It may have emanated from the necessity of meeting the day by day increasing tribute imposed on them by the Assyrians, or the need for overcoming the restrictions imposed on the local export items from Levant. Alternatively, they were just behaving as financially intelligent people and targeting the high potential profits involved in the open-sea trade.

In archaeology, despite their limited numbers, shipwrecks appear to provide the primary context for the maritime trade (Gates, 2011: 389). With the exception of the

Late Bronze Age shipwreck at Uluburun, which had a cargo of about 20 tons, the evidence from shipwrecks states that in the mid-seventh century the largest ships in the Mediterranean world could transport ca. 12 tons of cargo (Bresson, 2016: 87). In the table provided by Bresson, the cargo capacity of a shipwreck discovered off

Ashkelon, dated ca. 750 BC, was stated to be around 12 tons, too. At this point, I have to mention that the size/value of the cargo of a ship was closely related to the financial power of the ship owners/ traders. Due to the hazardous nature of the sea, these people had to be financially powerful enough to venture carrying valuable cargo such as those found in Uluburun (Knapp and Demesticha, 2017: 30). The textual evidence from Ugarit, the harbor from where Uluburun sailed, underlines the fact that the royal role in maritime trade was indirect, in the form of taxing the

68 merchants and providing incentives for the merchants (Knapp and Demesticha,

2017:11). Again, based on the cuneiform tablets discovered we know that in Ugarit there was a group of very powerful merchants like Urtenu, who also had close connections with the royal family. Although this fact brings us to the political, social and economic structures in which the trade activities were taking place, I would like to evaluate this in terms of "connectivity" later, and continue here with the harbors, the sine qua non of seaborne trade.

4.2. Harbors

Ancient harbors, the physical entities mainly used for sheltering the vessels and providing services to the crew for the safe continuity of their sea journeys rank among the most difficult subjects to study, mainly due to the changes in the coastal geomorphology. However, the cooperation among the scholars with different specializations made it to a great extent possible to identify and analyze them typologically (Blue, 1997: 31-4). Accordingly, they are grouped as anchorages on high energy locations (cliff-lined coasts) and anchorages on low energy locations

(low-lying coasts). Both in the Cilician coastal region and in the northern Levantine coast we encounter both types of harbors; natural bays, almost enclosed bays, sheltered valleys which fit in the high energy group, and riverine and deltaic anchorage sites which fit in the low energy group.

The harbors on deltaic plains are more difficult to study archaeologically compared to the harbors on cliff-lined coasts. Such an ancient harbor, known from the textual sources as situated on a deltaic plain and consequently no longer identifiable because of geomorphological changes, was Tarsus (Gözlükule) on the Cilician delta, which

69 we encounter in the Hittite texts as Tarsa and in the Roman texts as Rhegma (Blue,

1997: 38-40). The second site from the same region mentioned by Blue is Domuz

Tepe. The scientific analyses conducted so far point to a change in the course of

Ceyhan River during the first millennium BC, situating Domuz Tepe now to a more distant point from the river than it used to be (Blue, 1997: 40-1). With its suggested original location close to the mouth of the Ceyhan River, Domuz Tepe might have served as a riverine harbor, before the detected sedimentary changes. Unfortunately, the available evidence is not enough to take forward this speculative claim to a suggestion. Nevertheless, due to its closeness to the focus area of this thesis, it is worth keeping this contribution of Blue in mind.

Another site in our focus area with its two harbors in the Bronze and Iron Age is

Kinet Höyük (Gates, 1999: 260). In Kinet Höyük we observe the co-existence of a natural bay in the north and a river estuary in the south.

Continuing on Bronze-Iron Age harbors of Cilicia and the Levant region in the light of the map (fig.7) provided by Knapp and Demesticha, in the northern Levant we start with the riverine harbor of Sabuniye and following a linear distribution pattern we end with Ashkelon in the south (Knapp and Demesticha, 2017: xvi, Map 1c).

Most of these occurred as natural anchorage sites with a limited interference by people. However, with the first millennium BC, the increase in trade volume, and in response to emerging needs, in the Levant region we see renovated and built harbors.

For the renovated ones Arwad, Sidon, and Tyre might be given as examples, whereas for the built ones Tabbat el Hammam and Atlit are good representatives (Knapp and

Demesticha, 2017: 20-25). In addition to these sea harbors (mostly natural anchorage

70 sites and occasionally built ones) due to the relatively tranquil regime of the rivers in

Cilicia, the Amuq, and the Levant, we see the existence and frequent use of river estuary harbors in promoting the trade on the coast (Oruç, 2013: 19-20).

At this point, I would like to state that the terms harbors -denoting the physical entities- and ports -denoting the commercial entities- are generally used interchangeably by scholars (Knapp and Demesticha, 2017: 12). It is mainly due to the fact that the natural anchorage sites of the Bronze and Iron Age were at the same time the locations where the actual exchange of tangible and intangible goods, and exchange-related administrative issues were taking place. This intricate relationship can also be traced between a city and its harbor. Most of the cities which we know in

Cilicia and the Levant, came into prominence by virtue of their frequented harbors.

Although Vann's work (1997) focuses on west Cilicia (Cilicia Tracheia or Rough

Cilicia), his formula for a successful relationship between a city and its harbor is universally applicable. Accordingly, the factors are presented as a harbor's location

(the ease to dock the boats in the harbors), the availability of fresh water, a situation in an advantageous region both economically (supply of goods in demand) and geostrategically (easy access to inland territory), and the necessary fortifications to defend the city (Vann, 1997: 308-317). Within this framework, it shouldn't be a surprise to recognize Ugarit with its two harbors Minet el-Beidha and Ras ibn Hani as a developed and prosperous port city of the Late Bronze Age (Knapp and

Demesticha, 2017: 19).

In addition to Vann's factors, we observe one other feature peculiar to our focus region. Each harbor/ port city of Cilicia and the Levant is located roughly at a

71 distance of a day's sail from the other harbor/port cities of the region, and Cyprus.

The harbor sites Al Mina, Ras al-Bassit, Ras ibn Hani, Tell Sukas were all located very close to each other, providing the ships safe shelter during the nights (Dezső and Vér: 2013, 348-9, 332: Map 2). This characteristic of the Levantine littoral fostered the development of the short-distance trade or in its common use the term cabotage, which in turn made Phoenicians "professional sailors", who then dared to take their chances in the open-sea trade, as well (Panagiotopoulos, 2011: 38,

Bresson, 2005: 97-8). Cabotage, mainly occurring between neighboring ports, had transformative effects on the economical and social structures of the trading societies. When considered from the perspective of economy, it led to a shift from the subsistence economy to a trade-dependent economy, where the production became solely focused on the supply of the goods in high demand (Gates, 2011: 389-

90). These trade-oriented economies of the port cities necessitated the

"specialization" of everyone taking part in the market economy, such as professional miners, professional lumberjacks, professional murex collectors, professional shipbuilders, professional sailors, and also professional traders, like those mentioned formerly as managing the trade in Ugarit. The connectivity that we talk about existing in the Mediterranean in the Bronze and Iron Age was mostly by virtue of this last group of people.

4.3. Connectivity and Transculturality

Transculturality is presented as a result of being "connected" and defined as a

"diffusion of initial cultural identities as individuals cross the borders of different cultures and assimilate them" (Panagiotopoulos, 2011: 36). Here, it is important to perceive transculturality as a natural phenomenon, coming out of the practical

72 aspects of trade. Since trade and gift exchange mechanisms are being nominated as triggering factors of transculturality, then the protagonists are the "connectors", taking place in these processes: specialized sailors, merchants, their employers, the agencies of the political institutions, and also the ones travelling on the boats along with the goods, such as emissaries, scribes and craftsmen.

As yet, the high degree of connectivity of the seaborne trade couldn't be formulated better than by Foucault. This is why I would like to conclude the section of maritime trade with his oft-cited passage: "..if you imagine, after all, that the ship is a floating piece of space, a place without a place, that exists by itself, self-contained and at the same time exposed to the endless sea, travelling from port to port, from cargo to cargo, from brothel to brothel, as far as the colonies, in search of the most precious treasures they conceal in their gardens, you may understand why the ship has served for our civilization...not only as the greatest instrument of economic development

...but also as the greatest reservoir of imagination." (Knapp and Demesticha, 2017: 1;

Panagiotopoulos, 2011: 445).

4.4. Inland Trade Network and the Kāru System

Despite the growing importance of maritime trade, we should not lose sight of the inland trade, which was of equal importance and effectuated by means of river and caravan transports.

Here again, due to their intact power over 200 years in the region, we have as the feature player the Neo-Assyrian Empire, and with them, their kāru system. The system comprises trade centers on the frontiers, which are called kāru/karru and

73 translated as quay, harbor, trading station (Yamada, 2005: 56). These kārus served for the accomplishment of trade activities according to the agreements between the

Assyrian king and local rulers and traders. Mitchell Allen discussed all the factors of

Neo-Assyrians' long-lasting success and gathered them under the title of

"administrative technology", of which the kāru system appears as a crucial element

(Allen, 2005: 83-4). Likewise, Lanfranchi stated that manipulation of trade in the region conquered and/or annexed was an important element of the Assyrian consolidated policy at the end of the 8th c. BC (Lanfranchi, 2000: 12). Thus, the analysis of the inland trade network that was designed and overseen by the Assyrians is important for determining the extent of the "connectivity", initiated by the maritime trade (fig. 8).

At first sight, the western frontier of the network is very promising in terms of providing candidates as "Mediterranean": desert, river and its tributaries, piece of lands with geostrategic locations. Among them, firstly, the middle Euphrates (Laqê,

Hindānu, Sūhu) and lower Habur region can be distinguished. The caravan routes crossing the Syrian Desert headed for the river trade routes, to the Euphrates and to its tributary the Habur. Here, the Neo-Assyrian sources from the reign of Ashur- nasirpal II (883-859 BC) record the construction of a city, called Kār-Aššur-nāşir- apli55, on the left bank of the river together with another city named Nēbarti-Aššur, on the other bank (Yamada, 2005: 58, 63, 76). Both cities were located in the narrowest part of the Euphrates.

55 Maria Grazia Massetti-Rouault and Sabrina Salmon reported in ICAANE 6 (2) that they identified Tell Masaikh, which locates on the eastern bank of Middle Euphrates, around 20 km downstream from the mouth of the Habur as Kār-Aššur-nāşir-apli (2010: 385-396).

74 The other important trade center appears to be Til-Barsip, the capital of Bit-Adini, conquered in 857/856 BC by Shalmaneser III (858-824 BC) and renamed as Kār-

Šulmānu-ašarēd (Yamada, 2005: 61, 64). In becoming the provincial capital of the

Assyrians on the western frontier and the seat of the turtānu, commander in chief,

Kār-Šulmānu-ašarēd maintained its importance throughout the whole history of the

Neo-Assyrian Empire.

A third city with Kār+royal name toponym, Kār-Adad-nērārī, was named in the inscription on the Rimah stele, set-up by the governor of Adad -Nirari III (811-783

BC). From the content of the stele, scholars get the information that it was newly built and had a central role in the region. Despite the incompatible suggestions for the location of this city, the stele signals it to be in the vicinity of the Habur River

(Yamada, 2005: 58, 64-66). With these trade centers along the Euphrates, the Neo-

Assyrians were able to keep themselves connected with the North-Syrian and

Levantine trade network for almost a century (Dezsö and Vér, 2013: 352).

Before continuing with the kārus along the Eastern Mediterranean coast, I would like to underline the exclusiveness of the middle Euphrates/Habur region, and to state why it comes into view as another "Mediterranean". From the Annals we find out that the middle Euphrates/Habur area had been an area of interest for the Assyrians since the 14th c. BC (Liverani, 1988: 84). Liverani analyzes the presence of the

Assyrians in the region in two periods and concludes an old paradigm for the 14th-

9th centuries BC, and a new one for the period after the 9th c. BC. Contrary to the popular belief that the conquests of the Assyrians affected a territorial area in its entirety and equally, Liverani shows that there was in reality no uniformity within

75 the area. During the old paradigm, it was normal to see the centers adjacent to each other as having their own dynamics (Liverani, 1988: 85). Some centers were under

Assyrian control, some were continuing their hostility towards the Assyrians, and then some others accepted to pay tribute to the Assyrians. Under these circumstances, the Assyrian Empire rendered possible the continuity of its domination in the area with repetitive campaigns and by a "network of communications over which material goods are carried" (Liverani, 1988: 86). In the later period, the focus of this thesis, in the so- called new paradigm, the decisive policy of Tiglath-pileser III transformed this "network empire" into a "territorial empire" (Liverani, 1988: 91). With almost 600 years of experience they acquired in the region (1350-750 BC), the Assyrians were finally able to dominate it. Due to the attractiveness of the region, the co-existence of many cultures either in peace or hostility increased the "connectivity".

Continuing with the kārus , during the first years of Tiglath-pileser III's reign (745-

727 BC), coinciding with the annexation of Arpad, the kingdom of Unqi/Pattin and the northern region of Hamath, in western Syria/ west of the Euphrates to the coast, another city called Kār-Adad was mentioned in the Annals. While the dispute on its location still continues among scholars, Halab and Aribua appear as the two most possible candidates for Kār-Adad (Yamada, 2005: 66-7).

Tiglath-pileser III's conquests of the northern cities on the Phoenician coast, and

Şimirra becoming an important Assyrian province were stated in a number of texts.

Among them a stele from Iran is particularly relevant here (Yamada, 2005: 67-9).

The text on the stele enumerates Siannu (Tell Sianu), Ellišu, Şimirra (Tell Kazel),

76 Rēši-şurri, Mount Şapuna (Sabuniye) and Ahta (Al Mina) on the northern coast as annexed to Assyria56. These coastal cities are denominated as bīt-kāri (house of kāru/ custom-house) serving as trade centers, and supplying the royal needs (bīt şabûtāte

šarrūte).

Qurdi-Aššur-lamur, provincial officer of Tiglath-pileser III, in his letter (ND 2715) to which I referred in the previous chapter, also used the term bīt-karrāni (custom houses), this time for the city of Sidon. This oft-cited letter unfolds the extent of the control by the Assyrians. The control existed not only in the cities but also in the mountains, and was implemented by numerous tax inspectors (mākisāni), who were present in all trading posts in Lebanon (Yamada, 2005: 69). When Tiglath-pileser III conquered Gaza in his later campaigns during 734-732 BC, the texts mention the establishment of an Assyrian custom-house there, too.

Sargon II, perpetuating the expansionist policy of Tiglath-pileser III, in 712 BC extended the hegemony of the Assyrians across Gaza and opened the sealed trading post of Egypt (Dezsö and Vér, 2013: 353; Yamada, 2005: 69-70). Unfortunately, the location of "sealed kāru", proposed by Tadmor couldn't be specified. Some suggest its location in an area between Rafia and Wadi el-Arish (maybe Tell Abu Salima), or in the north of Raphia (maybe Ruqēš) or as the major port of Gaza.

The last important kāru on the western frontiers was noted in the Assyrian sources belonging to the reign of Esarhaddon (680-669 BC). Esarhaddon rebuilt the city of

Sidon in 677 BC, and named it Kār-Aššur-ahu-iddina. The northern border of this

56 For the identification of the sites Siannu and Şimirra see Pfälzner, 2012: 774-7.

77 new Assyrian province reached the province of Şimirra, leaving out the still independent kingdom of Byblos (Yamada, 2005: 58, 70).

Another textual evidence of utmost importance, pertaining to this period, is the treaty of Esarhaddon with Baal, king of Tyre, dated around 675 BC. The stipulations included "the confiscation of the cargo of any Tyrian ship that sank along the

Philistine coast or within the territory of Assyria", and "the rights and duties of

Tyrians in the kārus along the Mediterranean coast", which were grouped as those in the north of Tyre and those in the south of Tyre (Yamada, 2005: 70-1). The first clause, related to the right to confiscate the cargo of stranded Tyrian ships was the first and only example of the time, and showed the point reached in the Assyrians' coercion on the Phoenicians. The second clause matters for presenting the situation then in effect. The Assyrian policy seemed to continue being permissive for the trade activities along the East Mediterranean coasts, but imposed ever-increasing taxes.

The list of kārus in the north of Tyre comprises of the important port at Arwad, Tell

Sūkās, Başīt, Al Mina and and Tarsos in Cilicia (Elat, 1991: 27). The names of these ports were not cited explicitly in the text; the scholars derived them from its content.

To summarize briefly, starting from the reign of Ashur-nasirpal II up until the end of

Esarhaddon's reign, we attest a trade network, developed and dominated by the Neo-

Assyrians. Initial trade centers emerged in the middle Euphrates and lower Habur, followed by the others first crossing the great bend of the Euphrates to inner Syria and northern Phoenicia, and then expanding to littoral cities along the Eastern

Mediterranean57.

57 Yamada provides a table of all centers on the Western Frontiers of Assyria (Yamada, 2005: 7, Table 3).

78 Having in mind the impossibility of controlling all trade network and all the elements of trade, the Assyrians concentrated on the critical "ports of trade"58, which bordered the desert or the sea, and where they were mostly dependent on the Phoenicians,

Philistines and the Arabs (Elat, 1991: 23).

The great importance attributed to the Phoenicians and Philistines by the Assyrians can be understood by their administrative policies, as well. For ensuring the order on the coast, in addition to the traditional policies (conquest, deportation, taxation an tribute) the Assyrians applied new policies here. The manipulation of trade through force and legal means was already mentioned in the previous discussions. They also controlled the elites of the vassal states through their management of royal succession, and incorporated vassal states into the bureaucratic structure of the

Empire. The latter involved the assignment of either a local leader to perform the administrative functions on behalf of the Empire or the outside appointment of an

Assyrian administrator to oversee the trade activities (Allen, 2005: 82-5).

4.5. Trade, Cultural Contacts and the Spread of Language

Trade involves human agents. Thus, defining trade as merely an exchange of goods and services would be understating its further implications. The trade of tangible products (either goods or services), at the same time involves the trade of the intangible products, such as "culture" and knowledge (both expert knowledge and general knowledge). In this section, this aspect of the Assyrian trade network, not detectable at first glance, will be evaluated.

58 For the definition of a "port of trade", see Aubet, 1993: 82-3.

79 Within a "territorial empire", where the Assyrian rulers were setting all the rules and regulations of both maritime trade and overland trade, and pursuing their implementation very closely through rab-kāri59 (chief of the kāru), it is very natural to expect the dominance of the Assyrian practices in the trade operations as well.

However, contrary to expectations, we see the adoption of local mechanisms, which were preferred by the active merchants, Aramaeans and Phoenicians (Elat, 1991: 22).

Instead of imposing the standards of the Empire, the Assyrians let the merchants free while doing their business, which triggered, in Allen's terms, the "Westernization of

Assyrian trade" (Allen, 2005: 81).

This "westernization" is traceable in many ways. The preferential use of stamp seals

(representative of the western tradition) in comparison to cylinder seals

(representative of the eastern tradition) has been proved archaeologically. We should note here that the stamp seals were used for sealing papyrus, leather, and other materials, whereas the cylinder seals were suitable to be used on clay tablets. This shift towards stamp seals should be perceived as a natural outcome of the increased use of the western languages in trade operations. Prominent scholars concentrating on this topic, such as Oppenheim, Elat, and Allen, state that the Aramaeans and the

Phoenicians preferred to conduct their business in their own languages, instead of

Akkadian (Elat, 1991: 22). They, moreover, relate the absence of commercial evidence to this fact, namely, their use of papyrus and parchment in their writing, both having slender chance for surviving until today, compared to clay tablets preferred with the Akkadian language.

59 For a comprehensive description of the role of rab-kāri see Yamada, 2005: 77-81.

80 As for the use of Aramaic, the Annals provide information on the different prevailing atmospheres along the two banks of the Euphrates since the 10th c. BC. The co- existence of two warring powers, Aramaeans and Assyrians, around the middle

Euphrates led to the development of the left bank as "Assyrian" and the right bank as

"Aramaic" (Liverani, 1988: 88-9). And, based on the archaeological evidence like a bilingual inscription from Tell Fekheriye, we know the use of both languages already in the 9th c BC. Tiglath-pileser III formalized the use of imperial Aramaic as the second lingua franca of the Empire (Allen, 2005: 81). Despite its pervasive use in other areas as well (in courts and government-related documents), Allen thinks that

Aramaic was mostly a language preferred by the Assyrians in their trade relations.

Perhaps Elat's work could provide an additional support to the suggestion of Allen, who complains about the limited data on this subject. Elat mentions that his work on personal names of the tamkāru (traders), referenced in the documents from Neo-

Assyrian times, points out a remarkable percentage of Aramaeans, with 22 (or 23) out of 54 traders having Aramaean names (Elat, 1991: 23). This considerable amount of Aramaean traders might explain the preference of Aramaic among businessmen.

In addition to this, some of the renamed cities continued to be known under their former non-Akkadian names. Til-Barsip, with its new name Kār-Šulmānu-ašarēd, provides the best example for maintaining the older version. So, the Assyrian profile of the 8th c. BC seems to be attached to its mother tongue, but also tolerated local traditions (Dezsö and Vér, 2013: 354). Due to high exposure to more than one language, multilingualism became characteristic of the cities on the frontiers

(Yamada, 2005: 62).

81 Another prominent region with multilingual characteristics is the kingdom of Sam'al, noted for the written use of Luwian, Phoenician, and Aramaic languages with two different dialects, Sam'alian and imperial, between the 9th and 8th centuries BC

(Lemaire, 2001: 186-8).

If we continue from Sam'al westwards, we end up with Cilicia, where starting from the mid-8th c. BC until around 700 BC the use of the Phoenician language and script alongside Luwian and its hieroglyphic script was attested in many monumental inscriptions, which were mentioned in the first chapter. Lemaire states that he thinks its use began even earlier, in the 9th c. BC (Lemaire, 2008: 52).

Scholars have tried to provide explanations for the spread of the Phoenician language

(and script) outside its homeland. It should be noted beforehand that this is a difficult topic to resolve with definite conclusions. Scholars have emphasized Phoenician's relative simplicity to learn as the main reason for its adoption by all the contemporary societies. Although this feature is an accelerator in the spread of a language, the reasons for its usage by the Aramaeans and the Cilicians are expected to be totally different, considering the aspect of a language as an identity marker

(Payne, 2006: 125).

Parallel to this view, Amadasi Guzzo relates the use of Phoenician on the Kulamuwa

Stele to the ideology of Kulamuwa, and suggests that with the employment of a

"neutral language" like Phoenician60, the ruler wanted to convey a message of his self-made accomplishments to the readers (Amadasi Guzzo, 2019: 158-9).

60 The Kulamuwa inscription's script, which is a later version, exhibits Tyrian influence and links the Zincirli area with Tyre (Amadasi Guzzo, 2019: 162).

82 Lanfranchi's Azatiwatas, the ruler of Karatepe, with his loyal, nationalist, wise, prudent, pious, humble, and successful profile seems to have chosen Phoenician due to its appropriateness for his ideology, as well61 (Lanfranchi, 2007: 203-214). That said, confirming the complexity of the topic, the possibility of Azatiwatas having simply followed Kulamuwa's example cannot be excluded. The similarities in the general scheme of the two monumental inscriptions are known, and since Kulamuwa predates Karatepe, we may simply argue that Azatiwatas was taking Kulamuwa as a role model (Amadasi Guzzo, 2019: 160). On the other hand, we know that the trend of inscribing lengthy Luwian texts on sculpted orthostat friezes was already popular at Carchemish in the 10th c. BC, and thus may state that Azatiwatas was benefiting from this accustomed trend in his political propaganda (Mellink, 1998: 495, 497). Or, instead of ideological initiatives, should we consider Payne's explanation for the adoption of Phoenician in Cilicia, namely as a "prestige language" (Payne, 2006:

127, 134)?

In fact, the trade network hints at an answer for the spread of Phoenician. If we analyze the map of the kāru network provided by Yamada together with the map of the Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions from the 9th to the 7th century BC provided by Röllig (fig. 9), we might observe that the languages of the period preferred to travel within the same network as well (Yamada, 2005: 76; Röllig, 1992: 99).

However, since we are speaking of a region that witnessed manifold combinations of relations among its inhabitants, it is impossible to suggest the direction of influence very clearly, especially the one between Cilicia and the southeastern part of Anatolia

(its western border might be defined with Sam'al and Carchemish). Even Lemaire

61 The ambiguity on the identity of Azatiwatas continues. Thus, the scholars reconstruct the past according to their own interpretations. The controversy on the dating of the inscriptions in Cilicia will be mentioned in the following section.

83 and Amadasi Guzzo struggle in their hypotheses about the script's original direction

(Lemaire, 2001: 189; Amadasi Guzzo, 2019: 161).

However, years of previous work on this subject allow us to make two suggestions about the script very confidently. Taking into account the introduction of Phoenician in the western Mediterranean (Spain, Sardinia, Greece) too, we can state that there was a westwards progression of the alphabetic script by both land and sea (Lemaire,

2008: 53-4). In the meantime, there was an eastwards progression of alphabetic writing following the inland commercial expansions of West-Semitic populations.

While discussing the possible diffusion routes of the Phoenician language, it should be noted here that scholars like Simon and Novák turn to considering the role of

Cyprus in the spread of Phoenician in Cilicia. The strong Cypriot influence on the ceramics of Cilicia, attributed to the close trade relations between the island and

Cilicia, and the fact that Phoenician was in use on the "island of Adana" (Assyrian

Yadnana) since the 9th c. BC are the arguments they put forward (Simon, 2018: 313-

338; Novák, forthcoming: 63). Yes, the close relation with Cyprus might be an accelerating factor in the adoption of the Phoenician language in Cilicia.

Nevertheless, the suggestion of Yakubovich that the Greeks from Cyprus are the ones who must be credited for the spread of Phoenician language in Cilicia seems not to be acceptable, especially within a world where maritime trade (both direct and indirect) was still dominated by the Phoenicians (Yakubovich, 2015: 35-53; Gates

2019: 270-71; Novák, forthcoming: 63).

84 The travel of language along trade routes is the subject of the newly emerged field of study, "economics of language". This field not only considers the potentials of a language in creation of new opportunities and income, but also the other way round, the spread of language due to economic relations. Although we know that the factors that cause a language to spread are very diverse (conquest, mass migration, colonization, proselytism, official language planning, demographic growth of its speech community) and often acting together, within a well-designed trade network, the functional factors (economic factors like trade) appear to dominate the others

(Coulmas, 1992: 183-189). So, the linguists based on their dispersal initiatives differentiated among the linguae francae62, and defined the one spreading due to the economic factors as a "vehicular63 (or trade) language", citing English as the best example representing this category (Coulmas, 1992: 187, 190). Within this context,

Phoenician fits perfectly to the definition of a "vehicular (trade) language", which was spread by the leading actors of both open-sea trade and cabotage type trade, who also participated actively in overland trade.

Another feature of vehicular languages stated by the linguists is their low prestige

(Coulmas, 1992: 190). The linguists' point of view is very practical. Since trade languages are used mostly by uneducated people involved in the trade processes - like the sailors in Phoenicians' case-, they must be easy to learn. We can assume that the Phoenician language fulfilled that requirement, as well.

62 The definition of lingua franca provided by Unesco: "A language which is used habitually by people whose mother tongues are different in order to facilitate communication between them (Samarin, 1968: 661) 63 The definition provided: "A vehicular (trade) language is a lingua franca not included among the few world languages and which is used regionally as a second language across linguistic boundaries in commercial situations" (Coulmas, 1992: 190).

85 It should be emphasized here that the penetration of Phoenician to Cilicia involved two dimensions, language and writing, occurring together (Lemaire, 1991: 141-2). It was not just the adaptation of the Phoenician alphabet to transcribe an Indo-European language. The Phoenician script in Cilicia was used to transcribe Phoenician but not

Luwian. Scholars, due to its use by royal administration only, might have attributed a high prestige to Phoenician, but they should quit relating the use of Phoenician in

Cilicia to the prestige involved in the language. Apparently, in a context with high trade activities, dominated by the Phoenicians, speaking and writing Phoenician were a necessity. Its simplicity to learn -compared to other languages of the time- positioned Phoenician as the widely and rapidly accepted language of the trade network. Additionally, when considered from the ideological point of view, it was innocuous. This latter feature of Phoenician positions it as a "neutral language", and makes it eligible for selection as the second language by rulers who according to traditions wanted to establish monumental bilingual inscriptions while avoiding other prevalent languages because of their ideological risks. This long established tradition of the 10th c. BC and earlier was maintained at least into the Roman period, as spectacularly expressed in the emperor Augustus's Res Gestae in Ankara, where we see the use of both Ancient Greek and Latin.

4.6. Dating Discussion of the Inscriptions in Cilicia

At this point, I would like to return to the dates of these inscriptions, because the precise dates are crucial for establishing the historical context which made them possible. But, as will be seen this issue cannot be solved on present evidence.

86 In the absence of a date on a monumental inscription, archaeologists mainly refer to the reign of the ruler whose name appears on the inscription. Nevertheless, in the case of Cilicia the ambiguity arises from the ruler/king himself, whose identification on present historical evidence is problematic. Thus, the sequence and chronology of

8th c. BC Cilician rulers represent an exercise in circumstantial reasoning.

Review of all the suggested datings is beyond the scope of this thesis, although accurate dates for the inscriptions would offer better contexts for the initiatives behind their adoption of Phoenician. In the absence of consensus a chronology based on the archaeological evidence provides the only guidelines that can be followed.

The present lines of reasoning are briefly reviewed here.

Currently, most specialists identify King Urik(ki) of the Assyrian Annals with the ruler Awarikus/Warikas mentioned in the inscriptions of Çineköy, Karatepe,

Hasanbeyli, and Incirli. According to the different readings and spellings of his name, he may have preceded or followed Azatiwatas, builder of the Karatepe fortress and the ruler responsible for its reliefs and bilingual inscriptions. Azatiwatas has also been equated with Sanduarri, king of Kundu and Sissû, and contemporary of

Esarhaddon. However, all these suggestions contain uncertainties and contradictions, which have been systematically reviewed most recently by A. Fuchs and Novák

(forthcoming: 75-84).

The oft-cited Assyrian letter ND 2759, dated to 710-709 BC, which is used with reference to this discussion, is far from providing unequivocal information. It was written by Sargon II to his governor of Que, Aššur-šarru-uşur, naming a king

87 Urik(ki) in a conspiracy against the Assyrians (Novák, forthcoming: 63-4, 76-7). The identification of Urik(ki) with Awarikus/Warikas is in fact problematic, since it is linguistically uncertain whether these inscriptions refer to one and the same

Awarikus/Warikas or to two or more different kings (Novák, forthcoming: 37).

Furthermore, there is no reference to Azatiwatas in the Assyrian Annals.

And lastly, another date, important for these historical reconstructions but still unresolved, is when Que became an Assyrian province. As stated in the second chapter, two different views assign this event to the reign of Shalmaneser V or

Sargon II.

Within this framework we see the scholars desperately looking under every stone in order to provide a correct dating. Alongside paleographic clues such as the date of the scripts, the context of the different versions (Phoenician and Luwian), and comparable written sources recovered in other sites, Karatepe's architecture, ceramics, sculpture, reliefs, and iconography have also been examined with this intent.

Lanfranchi's work (2007) presents a perfect example for these pursuits: by making ideological comparisons between the contents of the Çineköy and Karatepe inscriptions, he makes suggestions for their construction dates. His work, based on the Luwian texts, concludes that the former predates the latter. He furthermore dates

Çineköy to the tributary period of Cilicia, to a period before the annexation of Que to the Assyrian empire and argues a date between the last years of Tiglath-pileser III and 715/4 BC (Lanfranchi, 2007: 180). Assuming that Azatiwatas's hostility in the

88 Karatepe text was addressed to the Assyrians, and that his pride at ridding the land of evils refers to Assyrian withdrawal from Que, Lanfranchi dates the Karatepe inscription to a period when the Assyrians were not in control of Cilicia. For that, he considers the few decades between the reign of Tiglath-pileser III and the first part of

Esarhaddon's reign (680-669 BC), excluding Sargon II's reign because of his successful campaigns in the region (Lanfranchi, 2007: 181).

Çambel and Özyar in their final report on the Karatepe excavations published in

2003, dated Azatiwatas's Karatepe to the 7th c. BC based on the Phrygian objects detected on the reliefs. However, since the traditional chronology of Gordion, a benchmark used by Çambel and Özyar, has now been revised upwards by one century, their chronological proposals need to be reevaluated (Novák, forthcoming:

46-50). In fact, according to the new chronology of Gordion, the Phrygian evidence points to a dating within the 8th c. BC.

Novák, comparing the same Çineköy and Karatepe monuments, this time on stylistic grounds, comes up with a sequence that contradicts Lanfranchi's: Karatepe antedating Çineköy, and the foundation of Karatepe in the mid 8th c. BC based on the archaeological evidence (Novák, forthcoming: 42-6). His interpretation of historical evidence reverses the sequence of the two kings named on these monuments. Azatiwatas would follow an old king Urikki, decades before the

Assyrians controlled Cilicia. Accordingly, Azatiwatas founded his fortress at

Karatepe before 755 BC, or between 755 and 740 BC, depending on whether the kings Warikus and Warikas represent the same king or two different rulers (Novák, forthcoming: 68-73). In his sequel to the same article, Fuchs proposed even earlier

89 dates: before 764 BC, or between 764-743 BC (Fuchs in Novák, forthcoming:82).

This reconstruction of events would introduce Phoenician iconographic and linguistic influence into 8th century Cilicia before the Assyrians became a political presence in the region.

Before concluding this chapter, I would like to underline the paradox observed in the

Iron Age eastern Mediterranean and its hinterland. On the one hand, we witness competitive states that are poised for battle; on the other hand we attest the same states conducting trade relations within a well-organized network. This network, starting from the Mediterranean Sea and spreading through the river routes to inland, to other micro-regions acting as "mediterranean", has been the place of cultural interactions, as well. Thus, we see Van de Mieroop stating that the political culture of the eastern Mediterranean is formed by the contributions from all participants, instead of adopting the dominant culture of the region (Van de Mieroop, 2005: 137-

8). The most important visible outcome of this high connectivity and common political culture is the spread of the Phoenician language.

90

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

The Phoenicians, to whom we owe the origins of our alphabet, ironically didn't leave much direct written evidence regarding their civilization, and thus obliged the archaeologists to work mainly with indirect commentary provided by their contemporaries. In this thesis, I also had to evaluate a number of issues with indirect evidence, and come up with a conclusion through logical reasoning and deduction.

The questions that were raised in the Introduction are mostly answered in the previous chapters: By whom was Phoenician introduced to Cilicia, what was its travel path from its homeland to Cilicia, what was the motivation of the local rulers in using Phoenician in their monumental inscriptions, and was it really an elite language? There is only one question remaining unanswered: Do we have

Phoenicians settled in Cilicia during the Middle Iron Age? Archaeological evidence, presented in the second chapter, is far from being able to confirm the permanent settlement of the Phoenicians in Cilicia. However, when I evaluate the textual evidence, then I surely can suggest a Phoenician presence there. The extent of their relationship with Cilicia appears as the next important issue to be explained. In my opinion, any attempt at explanation should consider the worldview of the

91 Phoenicians, which is mostly reflected in their colonization activities. Over the course of different stages, we see Phoenician colonies in Cadiz, Iberia, Utica,

Northwest Africa (Auza, Carthage), Cyprus, Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, Crete, and Malta

(Aubet, 2019).

Röllig, forty years ago, explicitly stated his belief that colonization of the

Phoenicians started as an outcome of the transformation in their internal economic and political policies, independently from the increased Assyrian pressure and restructuration of the later 8th and 7th centuries BC (Röllig, 1982: 24, 28).

Supporting Röllig's view, but at the same time not rejecting the importance of the

Assyrians, Aubet provides a table of variables (agricultural needs, overpopulation, trade related issues like the need for the new centers of production, the search for raw materials, and political changes in the region), which either solely or acting together, might have led the Phoenicians to expand westward (Aubet, 1993: 51-3, Fig.14).

Indeed, the results of recent archaeological excavations in the western Mediterranean updated the chronology on the earliest presence of the Phoenicians in the west.

Accordingly, C14 dating analyses suggest the earliest dates for the presence of

Phoenicians at Huelva (Spain) as 930-830 BC, and at Carthage as 850-795 BC

(Nijboer & van der Pflicht, 2006: 32-3). So, the westward expansion of Phoenicians can be dated to the first half of the 9th c.BC, before the zenith of the Assyrians' pressure, and not as a result of their (the Assyrians') policies.

In addition to that, a review of the founding of their colonies reveals that in their colonization the primary concern of the Phoenicians was protecting themselves and their commercial activities. In ancient trade, the use of the sanctuaries/temples as

92 protectors of visitors to the market/place of exchange was a common practice

(Aubet, 1993: 234-5). Under the divine protection, the visitor couldn't be harmed or robbed. It is very likely that the Phoenicians followed the same practice, because

Aubet states that "the building of the temple of Melqart in association with the founding of the colony" was a deliberate strategy of theirs (Aubet, 1993: 236). While discussing the contribution of the temple of Melqart at Cadiz/Gadir, Aubet mentions that this protective role of the temple brought with it new functions for the temples such as checking the quality of the merchandise and setting the equivalencies and weights. They were thus converted into an institution, fulfilling the role of treasury and bank, besides being a place of worship. Within this modus operandi, the temples of the Phoenicians controlled a considerable amount of capital, which under different conditions could have attracted the interest of the Assyrians. However, as stated by

Van de Mieroop, for the Assyrians "the sea was a border that could only be crossed by specialist people living on its coast" (2005: 140). So, as suggested by Allen, the colonies gave the opportunity to the Phoenicians to enjoy trading freely without the

Assyrians' intervention (Allen, 2005: 86).

This freedom offered by the colonies gives rise to the thought of a possible transformation in the role of the Phoenician temples from regular "banks" to "off- shore banks". This financial aspect of the colonies is worth evaluating, for its potential in explaining both the western expansionist policy of the Phoenicians and also the diminishing financial power of the Assyrians. In this respect, and despite the differing views of economists about it, I would like to refer to the Laffer Curve, which shows the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue (Begg, Fisher,

Dornbush, 1991: 294). According to this reverse parabolic curve (upside down U

93 shape), the tax revenue, starting with zero at a tax rate of zero, reaching to a peak with increasing tax rates, has a tendency to show decrease after a maximum tax rate and end with zero again at a hundred percent tax rate, since the tax payer prefers to quit the taxable environment. The Assyrians' ever increasing pressure, thus, might have reshaped the meaning of the colonies for the Phoenicians, even though their initial motives were not just an escape from the Assyrians' pressure. Coming back to

Cilicia, if the Phoenicians had founded a colony, and according to the common practice a temple there, then the accumulated capital of the Phoenicians in Cilicia would have been within the reach of the Assyrians.

Other than this financial aspect, founding a colony in Cilicia was not at all rational.

In the eastern Mediterranean we see the kāru network of the Assyrians already fulfilling the role of the temples in colonies, as the protector of the traders and the trade. In the presence of this strictly controlled and guarded system of kāru, there was no need for an additional mechanism guaranteeing a favorable environment for trade activities.

And lastly, the location of Cilicia, so close to the Phoenician homeland constitutes another disfavoring factor for the establishment of a colony. We observe the foundation of the Phoenician colonies at strategic points, used as safe stops during their long journeys in open-sea. Cilicia has no such characteristics to offer. Putting all these considerations together, according to the colonization strategy of the

Phoenicians, Cilicia was not an attractive location for founding a colony. Thus I do not expect a permanent Phoenician settlement in Cilicia during the Middle Iron Age.

94 Within this reconstruction of the past, we owe the appearance of Phoenician culture in Cilicia, especially their script and art (in reliefs), to the Phoenician traders who visited the area regularly for their direct and indirect trade activities, and to commercial partners who accompanied them. Book-keeping, an inseparable part of trade activities, necessitated the presence of scribes, or at least literate business agents on board. These Phoenician scribes accompanying the Phoenician traders must have played a crucial role in the transfer of the Phoenician language and script to the area. In addition to scribes, craftsmen were mobile as well. We know that either by necessity or by choice, some of the Phoenician craftsmen started to work abroad (Markoe, 2000: 92). These wandering Phoenician craftsmen should also be taken into account, when discussing the origins of the Phoenician inspiration in the

Karatepe reliefs.

The spread of Phoenician and Phoenician culture was not limited to the eastern

Mediterranean. Due to the colonization and outreaching trade activities, we see its spread to the western Mediterranean, as well. In the West, from the late 9th until the middle/end of the 6th c. BC we can attest the use of Standard Phoenician. From the late 6th c. BC, linguists detect some phonological and morphological changes and prefer to categorize that language as Punic from then onwards (Amadasi Guzzo,

2019: 200, 203).

This start with the unity in the language from the most eastern point of the

Mediterranean to the west, to Huelva on the Iberian Peninsula was an important step in the development of the "commercial unity" of the Mediterranean, as stated firstly by Braudel (Abulafia, 2005: 68). Despite the presence of regionally competing

95 powers, the Mediterranean Sea continued to be the scene of contacts, mainly via trade, even during the confrontation between Islam and Christendom (Abulafia,

2005: 69). In this transformation process of the Mediterranean from an endless sea with different civilizations occupying her different shores without much contact to a vivid market place, the role of the Phoenicians is pivotal. These extraordinarily talented sea traders were acting like the gentle host of the Mediterranean. Using their trade connections, they were introducing the materials and at the same time the culture of a specific civilization to other civilizations, who had no contact before or even further, were not aware of each other, at all. Thanks to the Phoenicians, the distances became smaller and the "connectivity" on the Mediterranean Sea reached to a very high level that still continues.

Lastly, with the introduction of their twenty-two letter consonantal alphabet, they also paved the way for overcoming the "restricted literacy" problem, which appeared with the beginning of writing. Goody explains the use of literacy among the privileged as a means of maintaining power, and the implementation of "restricted literacy" for preserving their monopoly (Goody, 2005: 12). In the process of

Phoenician becoming the new lingua franca of the period, trade was a stimulating factor but the revolutionary simplicity of the Phoenician alphabet appears as the most important vector for its spread.

This thesis concludes that Phoenician was not a "prestige language", but a "trade language" introduced to Cilicia by the Phoenicians themselves. In the light of recent historical evidence, the "neutrality" of the language provided the most likely initiative for its adoption by the local rulers as the second written language. Having

96 said that, we all wait for the archaeologists' determination of the specific historical context of these monumental inscriptions, in order to evaluate the other possible reasons. This thesis also concludes that there was no permanent settlement of the

Phoenicians -except emigré artisans and craftsmen- in Cilicia during the Middle Iron

Age.

97 REFERENCES

Abulafia, D. (2005). Mediterraneans. In W.V. Harris (Ed.), Rethinking the

Mediterranean, (pp. 64-93). New York: Oxford University Press.

Allen, M. (2005). Power is in the Details: Administrative Technology and the

Growth of Ancient Near Eastern Cores. In C. Chase-Dunn, E.N. Anderson (Eds.),

The Historical Evolution of World-Systems, (pp.75-91). Springer eBooks: doi:

10.1057/9781403980526.

Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. (2019). What Do We Know about the Borders and

Exchanges between Aram and Phoenicia in the 9th-8th Centuries B.C.E. in

Anatolia and Syria? In J. Dušek, J. Mynářová (Eds.), Aramaean orders:

Defining Aramaean Territories in the 10th-8th Centuries B.C.E, (pp.149-171).

Brill, doi: 10.1163/9789004398535.

Amadasi Guzzo, M.G. (2019). The Language. In C. López-Ruiz, B.R. Doak (Eds.),

The Oxford Handbook of the Phoenician and Punic Mediterranean, (pp. 199-

221). New York: Oxford University Press.

Aruz, J. (2014). Introduction. In J. Aruz, S. B. Graff, Y. Rakic (Eds.), Assyria to

Iberia: at the Dawn of the Classical Age, (pp. 2-11). New York: The Metropolitan

Museum of Art.

Aubet, M.E. (1993). The Phoenicians and the west: Politics, colonies and trade.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Aubet Semmler, M.E. (2019). Tyre and Its Colonial Expansion. In C. López-Ruiz,

B.R. Doak (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Phoenician and Punic

Mediterranean, (pp. 75-87). New York: Oxford University Press.

Barnett, R.D. (1956). Phoenicia and ivory trade. Archaeology, 9(2), 87-97.

98 Beal, R.H. (1992). The location of Cilician Ura. Anatolian Studies, 42, 65-73.

Begg, D., Fisher, S., & Dornbush, R. (1991). Economics (3rd ed.). Berkshire:

McGraw-Hill Book Company Europe.

Blue, L.K. (1997). Cyprus and Cilicia: The Typology and Palaeogeography of

Second Millennium Harbors. In S. Swiny, R.L. Hohlfelder, H.W. Swiny (Eds.),

Res Maritimae: Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late

Antiquity, (pp. 31-43). Atlanta: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Bossert, E.-M. (2014). Keramik. In H. Çambel (Ed.), Karatepe-

Aslantaş:Azatiwataya, (pp.113-153). Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.

Braun, T.F.R.G. (1982). The Greeks in the Near East. In J. Boardman, N.G.L.

Hammond (Eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume III: The Expansion of

the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C., (pp.1-31). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Bresson, A. (2005). Ecology and Beyond: The Mediterranean Paradigm. In W.V.

Harris (Ed.), Rethinking the Mediterranean, (pp. 94-114). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Bresson, A. (2016). The making of the ancient Greek economy: Institutions, markets,

and growth in the city-states. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Calvet, Y. (2000). The house of Urtenu, Near Eastern Archaeology, 63(4), 210-213.

doi: 10.2307/3210788.

Caneva,I., Köroğlu, G., Köroğlu, K., & Özaydın, T. (2006). Mersin Yumuktepe

Höyüğü 2004 yılı kazı çalışmaları. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 27(2), 105-116.

Coulmas, F. (1992). Language and economy (1st ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

99 Çakırlar, C., & Ikram S. (2016). 'When elephants battle, the grass suffers.' Power,

ivory and the Syrian elephant, Levant 48(2), 1-17. doi:

10.1080/00758914.2016.1198068.

Çambel, H., & Özyar, A. (2003). Karatepe-Aslantaş: Azatiwataya: Die Bildwerke.

Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

D'Agata, A. L. (2019). Misis (ancient Mopsouestia) and the plain of Cilicia in the

early first millenium BC: Material entanglements, cultural boundaries, and local

identities. Studi Micenei Ed Egeo-Anatolici-Nuova Serie (SMEA NS), 5, 87-110.

Dalley, S. (1999). Sennacherib and Tarsus. Anatolian Studies 49, 73-80.

Dardeniz, G. (2015). Was ancient Egypt the only supplier of natron? New research

reveals major Anatolian deposits, Anatolica, 41, 191-202. doi:

10.2143/ANA.41.0.3127293.

Darga, A.M. (1984). Karatepe-Azatiwattaya kalesinin çanak çömlek buluntuları.

Anadolu Araştırmaları, 10, 371-415. Retrieved from

https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/iuanadolu/issue/1163/13693.

Dezső, T., & Vér, Á. (2013). Assyrians and Greeks: The nature of contacts in the

9th-7th centuries BC, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 53, 325-

359. doi: 10.1556/AAnt.53.2013.4.1.

Dezső, T. (2018). Assurluların Anadolu Seferleri: Assyrian Campaigns to Anatolia.

In K. Köroğlu, S.F.Adalı (Eds.), Assurlular-Dicle'den Toroslar'a Tanrı Assur'un

Krallığı: The Assyrians-Kingdom of God Assur from Tigris to Taurus, (pp. 128-

159). Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.

Elat, M. (1991). Phoenician Overland Trade within the Mesopotamian Empires. In

M. Cogan, I. Eph'al (Eds.), Ah, Assyria...Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient

100 Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor, (pp. 21- 35).

Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.

Elayi, J. (2017). Sargon II: King of Assyria. Atlanta: SBL Press.

Elayi, J. (2018). Sennacherib: King of Assyria. Atlanta: SBL Press.

Erdoğu, B., & Fazlıoğlu, İ. (2006). The central Anatolian salt project: A preliminary

report on the 2004 and 2005 surveys, Anatolia Antiqua 14, 189-203. doi:

10.3406/anata.2006.1075.

Eshel, T., Yahalom-Mack, N., Shalev, S., Tirosh, O., Erel, Y., & Gilboa, A. (2018).

Four Iron Age silver hoards from southern Phoenicia: From bundles to

hacksilber. BASOR, 379, 197-228.

Eshel, T., Erel, Y., Yahalom-Mack, N., Tirosh, O., & Gilboa, A. (2019). Lead

isotopes in silver reveal earliest Phoenician quest for metals in the west

Mediterranean, PNAS, 116(13), 6007-6012. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1817951116.

Fantalkin, A. (2006). Identity in the Making: Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean

during the Iron Age. In A. Villing, U. Schlotzhauer (Eds.), Naukratis: Greek

Diversity in Egypt-Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern

Mediterranean, (pp. 199-208). London: The British Museum.

Fantalkin, A., & Finkelstein, I. (2006). The Sheshonq I campaign and the 8th-

century BCE earthquake-more on the archaeology and history of the south in

the Iron I-IIa, Tel Aviv, 33(1), 18-42. doi:10.1179/tav.2006.2006.1.18.

Fontan, E. (2014). Ivories of Arslan Tash. In J. Aruz, S. B. Graff, Y. Rakic (Eds.),

Assyria to Iberia: at the Dawn of the Classical Age, (pp. 152-156). New York:

The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Forbes, R.J. (1965). Studies in ancient technology, volume 3: Cosmetics and

perfumes in antiquity (2nd ed.). Leiden: E.J.Brill.

101 Forlanini, M. (2013). How to infer ancient roads and itineraries from heterogeneous

Hittite texts: The case of the Cilician (Kizzuwatnean) road system, Kaskal, 10, 1-

34.

Frankenstein, S. (1979). The Phoenicians in the Far West: A Function of Neo-

Assyrian Imperialism. In M.T. Larsen (Ed.), Power and Propaganda: A

Symposium on Ancient Empires, (pp. 263-294). Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.

Freestone I., Wolf, S., & Thirlwall, M. (2009). Isotopic Composition of Glass from

the Levant and South-eastern Mediterranean Region. In P. Degryse, J. Henderson,

G. Hodgings (Eds.), Studies in Archaeological Sciences: Isotopes in Vitrefous

Materials, (pp. 31-52). Leuven: Leuven University Press.

Gates, M.-H. (1999). 1997 Archaeological excavations at Kinet Höyük (Yeşil-

Dörtyol, Hatay). Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 20(1), 259-281.

Gates, M.-H. (2004). 2002 Season at Kinet Höyük (Yeşil-Dörtyol, Hatay). Kazı

Sonuçları Toplantısı, 25(1), 405-416.

Gates, M.-H. (2010). Potters and Consumers in Cilicia and the Amuq during the

'Age of Transformations' (13th-10th Centuries BC). In F.Venturi (Ed.), Societies

in Transition: Evolutionary Processes in Northern Levant between Late Bronze

Age II and Early Iron Age, (pp. 65-81). Bologna: CLUEB.

Gates, M.-H. (2011). Maritime Business in the Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean:

The View from its Ports. In K. Duistermaat, I. Regulski (Eds.), Intercultural

Contacts in the Ancient Mediterranean (OLA 202), (pp. 381-394). Louvain:

Peeters.

Gates, M.-H. (2019). Doing Business Bridging Gaps on Cyprus in the Bronze and

Iron Age. In V. Şahoğlu, M. Şevketoğlu, Y.H. Erbil (Eds.), Connecting Cultures:

102 Trade and Interconnections in the Ancient Near East from the Beginning until the

end of the Roman Period, (pp. 257-277). Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi.

Gilroy, C.G. (1853). History of silk, cotton, linen, wool, and other fibrous

substances (1st ed.). New York: C.M.Saxton, Agricultural Book Publisher.

Girginer, S., Oyman-Girginer Ö., & Akıl, H. (2011). Tatarlı Höyük kazısı 2009-

2010/ excavations at Tatarlı Höyük in 2009-2010. Anmed (9), 128-135.

Girginer, S., Oyman-Girginer Ö., Akıl, H., Cevher, M., & Aklan İ. (2014). 2012

Tatarlı Höyük kazıları. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 35(2), 182-196.

Goody, J. (2005). Literacy in traditional societies (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Güder, Ü., Gates, M.-H., & Yalçın, Ü. (2017). Early iron from Kinet Höyük, Turkey:

Analysis of objects and evidence for smithing, Metalla, 23(2), 51-65.

Hodos, T., Knappett, C., & Kilikoglou, V. (2005). Middle and late Iron Age painted

ceramics from Kinet Höyük: Macro, micro and elemental analyses, Anatolian

Studies, 55, 61-87.

Jasink, A.M., & Bombardieri, L. (2008). Assyrians, Phoenicians, Cypriots and

Greeks: The co-existence of foreign cultural influences in the Çukurova Plain

during the Iron Age, OLBA, 16, 23- 56.

Keen, A.G. & Fischer-Hansen, T. (2004). The South Coast of Asia Minor

(Pamphylia, Kilikia). In M.H. Hansen, T.H. Nielsen (Eds.), An Inventory of

Archaic and Classical Poleis, (pp. 1211-1222). New York: Oxford University

Press.

Kestemont, G. (1985). Les phéniciens en Syrie du Nord. In E. Lipiński, E. Gubel

(Eds.), Phoenicia and Its Neighbours (Studia Phoenicia III), (pp. 135-161).

Leuven: Peeters.

103 Knapp, B., & Demesticha, S. (2017). Mediterranean connections: Maritime

transport containers and seaborne trade in the Bronze and early Iron Ages (1st

ed.). New York: Routledge.

Kramsch, C.J. (1998). Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kuhrt, A. (2002). Greek Contact with the Levant and Mesopotamia in the First Half

of the First Millennium BC: A View from the East. In G.R. Tstetskhladze, A.M.

Snodgrass (Eds.), Greek Settlement in the Eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea,

(pp. 17-25). Oxford.

Lanfranchi, G.B. (2000). The Ideological and Political Impact of the Assyrian

Imperial Expansion on the Greek World in the 8th and 7th Centuries BC. In S.

Aro, R.M. Whiting (Eds.), The Heirs of Assyria. Proceedings of the Opening

Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project Held in

Tvärminne, Finland, October 8- 11, 1998. Melammu Symposia I, (pp. 7-34).

Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.

Lanfranchi, G.B. (2007). The Luwian-Phoenician Bilinguals of ÇINEKÖY and

KARATEPE: An Ideological Dialogue. In R. Rollinger, A. Luther, J. Wiesehöfer

(Eds.), in Getrennte Wege?: Kommunikation, Raum und Wahrnehmung in der

Alten Welt, (pp. 179-217). Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Antike.

Lehmann, G. (2008). North Syria and Cilicia, c.1200-330 BCE. In C. Sagona (Ed.),

Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology, (pp. 205-246).

Leuven: Peeters Press.

Lehmann, G. (2016). The Archaeology of the Assyrian Period in Cilicia in the Light

of the Kinet Höyük Excavations. In J. MacGinnis, D. Wicke, T. Greenfield (Eds.),

The Provincial Archaeology of the Assyrian Empire, (pp. 321-333). Cambridge:

University of Cambridge.

104 Lehner, J.W. (2014). Metal Technology, Organization, and the Evolution of Long-

Distance Trade at Kültepe. In L. Atici, F. Kulakoğlu, G. Barjamovic, A.

Fairbairn (Eds.), Current Research at Kültepe-Kanesh: An Interdisciplinary and

Integrative Approach to Trade Networks, Internationalism, and Identity, (pp. 135-

155). Atlanta: Lockwood Press.

Lemaire, A. (1991). L'écriture phenicienne en Cilicie et la diffusion des écritures

alphabétiques. In Cl. Baurain, C. Bonnet, V. Krings (Eds.), Phoinikeia

Grammata: lire et écrire en Méditerranée, (pp. 133-146). Namur: Société des

Études Classiques.

Lemaire, A. (2001). Les langues du royaume de Sam'al aux IXe-VIIIe s.av.J.-C. et

leurs relations avec le royaume de Qué. In É. Jean, A.M. Dinçol, S. Durugönül

(Eds.), La Cilicie: espaces et pouvoirs locaux (IIe millénaire av.J.-C.-IVe siècle

ap.J.-C.). Actes de la Table Ronde d'Istanbul, 2-5 novembre 1999, (pp. 185-193).

Istanbul: Institut Français d'Études Anatoliennes-Georges Dumézil. (Varia

Anatolica 13).

Lemaire, A. (2008). The spread of alphabetic scripts (c.1700-500 BCE), Diogenes,

55(2), 45-58. doi: 10.1177/0392192108090738.

Lipiński, E. (1985). Phoenicians in Anatolia and Assyria, 9th-6th centuries B.C.

Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica, 16, 81-90.

Lipiński, E. (1994). Studies in Aramaic inscriptions and onomastics II. Leuven:

Peeters.

Lipiński, E. (2004). Itineraria Phoenicia (Studia Phoenica XVIII, Orientalia

Lovaniensia Analecta 127). Leuven: Peeters.

105 Liverani, M. (1988). The growth of the Assyrian Empire in the Habur/middle

Euphrates area: A new paradigm. SAAB, 2(2), 81-98. Retrieved from

http://www.helsinki.fi/science/saa/2.

Luckenbill, D.D. (2005). The annals of Sennacherib: Ancient texts and

translations (1st ed.). Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers.

Luraghi, N. (2006). Traders, pirates, warriors: The Proto-history of Greek mercenary

soldiers in the eastern Mediterranean. Phoenix, 60, 21-47.

Maner, Ç. (2017). A Metal Workshop? Multi- Hollow Anvils at Taştepe Obası in

Southeastern Konya. In Ç. Maner, M.T. Horowitz, A.S. Gilbert (Eds.),

Overturning Certainties in Near Eastern Archaeology, (pp. 436-452). Leiden:

Brill.

Markoe, G.E. (2000). Peoples of the past: Phoenicians. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Maxwell-Hyslop, K.R. (1974). Assyrian sources of iron. A preliminary survey of the

historical and geographical evidence. Iraq 36(1/2), 139-154.

Meiggs, R. (1998). Trees and timber in the ancient Mediterranean world (Special

ed. for Sandpier Books Ltd.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Mellink, M.J. (1998). Bilinguals and the Alphabet in Cilicia, Tabal and Phrygia. In

G. Arsebük, M.J. Mellink, W. Schirmer (Eds.), Light on Top of the Black Hill:

Studies Presented to Halet Çambel, (pp. 495-498). Istanbul: Ege Yayınları.

Moscati, S. (1968) The world of the Phoenicians. New York: Frederick A. Praeger

Inc.Publishers.

Nijboer, A.J., & van der Pflicht, J. (2006). An interpretation of the radiocarbon

determinations of the oldest indigenous- Phoenician stratum thus far excavated at

106 Huelva, Tartessos (south-west Spain), Bulletin des Antieke Beschaving

(BABesch), 81, 31-36. doi: 10.2143/BAB.81.0.2014423.

Novák, M., D'Agata, A.L., Caneva. I., Eslick, C., Gates, C., Gates, M.-H....& Yaşin

Meier, D. (2017). A comparative stratigraphy of Cilicia, Altorientalische

Forschungen, 44(2), 150-186. doi:10.1515/aofo-2017-0013.

Novák, M., Kozal, E., & Yaşin, D. (2019). Sirkeli Höyük: Ein urbanes Zentrum am

Puruna-Pyramos im ebenen Kilikien. Vorbericht der schweizerisch-türkischen

Ausgrabungen 2006-2015. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Novák, M. (forthcoming) Azatiwada, Awariku from the "Houses of Mopsos", and

Assyria: On the dating of Karatepe in Cilicia. In A. Payne, J. Wintjes (Eds.),

Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series, (pp. 23-91).

Núñez, F.J. (2019). Pottery and Trade. In C. López- Ruiz, B.R. Doak (Eds.), The

Oxford Handbook of the Phoenician and Punic Mediterranean,(pp. 329-348).

New York: Oxford University Press.

Oded, B. (1974). The Phoenician cities and the Assyrian Empire in the time of

Tiglath-pileser III. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 90(1), 38-49.

Oruç, S. Z. (2013). Harbor settlement patterns of the second millennium BC in

Cilicia and the Amuq. MA Thesis, Bilkent University.

Özaydın, T. (2010). Demir Çağ Tabakaları. In I. Caneva, G. Köroğlu (Eds.),

Yumuktepe: Dokuzbin Yıllık Yolculuk, (pp. 73-78). İstanbul: Ege Yayınları.

Özbayoğlu, E. (2003). Notes on natural resources of Cilicia: A contribution to local

history. Olba, 8, 159-171.

Özyar, A. (2016). Phoenicians and Greeks in Cilicia? Coining Elite Identity in Iron

Age Anatolia. In J. Aruz, M. Seymour (Eds.), Assyria to Iberia: Art and Culture

in the Iron Age, (pp. 136-146). New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

107 Panagiotopoulos, D. (2011). The Stirring Sea. Conceptualizing Transculturality in

the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean. In K. Duistermaat, I. Regulski

(Eds.), Intercultural Contacts in the Ancient Mediterranean (OLA 202), (pp. 31-

51). Louvain: Peeters.

Payne, A. (2006). Multilingual Inscriptions and Their Audiences: Cilicia and Lycia.

In S.L. Sanders (Ed.), Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures, (pp. 121-136).

Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Pfälzner, P. (2012). Levantine Kingdoms of the Late Bronze Age. In D.T. Potts

(Ed.), A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, (pp. 770-796).

Chicester: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Rahe, P. A. (1992). Republics ancient and modern: Classical republicanism and the

American revolution. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Richey, M. (2019). Inscriptions. In C. López-Ruiz, B.R. Doak (Eds.), The Oxford

Handbook of the Phoenician and Punic Mediterranean, (pp. 223-240). New

York: Oxford University Press.

Röllig, W. (1982). Die Phönizier des Mutterlandes zur Zeit der Kolonisierung. In

H.G. Niemeyer (Ed.), Phönizier im Westen. Die Beiträge des Internationalen

Symposiums über 'Die phönizische Expansion im westlichen Mittelmeerraum'.

(Madrider Beiträge 8), (pp.15-30). Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Röllig, W. (1992). Asia Minor as a Bridge between East and West: The Role of the

Phoenicians and Aramaeans in the Transfer of Culture. In G. Kopcke, I.

Tokumaru (Eds.), Greece between East and West: 10th and 8th centuries BC:

Papers of the meeting at the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, March 15-

16th 1990, (pp. 93-102). Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

Salmeri, G. (2003). Processes of hellenization in Cilicia. Olba, 8, 265-293.

108 Samarin, W.J. (1968). Lingua Francas of the World. In J.A. Fishman (Ed.), Readings

in the Sociology of Language, (pp. 660-672). The Hague: Mouton and Co.

Seton-Williams, M.V. (1954). Cilician survey. Anatolian Studies, 4, 121-174.

Siegelová, J., & Tsumoto, H. (2011). Metals and Metallurgy in Hittite Anatolia. In

H. Genz, D.P. Mielke (Eds.), Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology, (pp.

275-300). Leuven: Peeters.

Simon, Z. (2018). Die Griechen und das Phönizische im Späthethitischen Staat

Hiyawa: Die Zyprische Verbindung. In P.A. Mumm, W. Sallaberger (Eds.),

Sprachen, Völker und Phantome: Sprach-und Kulturwissenschaftliche Studien zur

Ethnizität, (pp. 313-338). Berlin: De Gruyter.

Strassler, R.B. (ed.) (2009). The landmark Herodotus: The histories. New York:

Anchor Books.

Şahin, F. (2016). Tepebağ Höyük 2014-2015 yılı kazı çalışmaları. Kazı Sonuçları

Toplantısı, 37(2), 191-208.

Şahin, F. (2017). Adana/ Tepebağ Höyük kazısı 2015 yılı sonuçları. Kazı Sonuçları

Toplantısı, 38(3), 151-172.

Thureau-Dangin, F. & Dunand, M. (1936). Til-Barsib, Texte. Paris: P. Geuthner.

Uberti, M.L. (1999). Ivory and Bone Carving. In S. Moscati (Ed.), The Phoenicians,

(pp. 456-471). New York: Rizzoli Publications.

Uberti, M.L. (1999). Glass. In S. Moscati (Ed.), The Phoenicians, (pp. 536-561).

New York: Rizzoli Publications.

Vacek, A. (2020). Ugarit, Al Mina, and Coastal North Syria. In I.S. Lemos, A.

Kotsonas (Eds.), A Companion to the Archaeology of Early Greece and the

Mediterranean, (pp. 1163-1184). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

109 Van de Mieroop, M. (2005). The Eastern Mediterranean in Early Antiquity. In W.V.

Harris (Ed.), Rethinking the Mediterranean, (pp. 117-140). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Vann, R.L. (1997). A Classification of Ancient Harbors in Cilicia. In S. Swiny, R.L.

Hohlfelder, H.W. Swiny (Eds.), Res Maritimae: Cyprus and the Eastern

Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity, (pp. 307-319). Atlanta:

American Schools of Oriental Research.

Watson-Treumann, B. (2000). Beyond the cedars of Lebanon: Phoenician timber

merchants and trees from the 'Black Mountain'. Die Welt des Orients, 31, 75-83.

Winter, I.J (1973). North Syria in the early first millennium B.C. with special

reference to ivory carving. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.

Winter, I.J. (1979). On the problems of Karatepe: The reliefs and their context.

Anatolian Studies, 29, 115-151.

Yakubovich, I. (2015). Phoenician and Luwian in early Iron Age Cilicia, Anatolian

Studies, 65, 35-53. doi: 10.1017/S0066154615000010.

Yamada, S. (2005). Kārus on the frontiers of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Orient, 40,

56-90. Retrieved from https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/orient/40/0/40_56/_pdf.

Yardeni, A. (1994). Maritime trade and royal accountancy in an erased customs

account from 475 B.C.E. on the Ahiqar scroll from Elephantine, Bulletin of the

American Schools of Oriental Research, 293, 67-78. doi: 10.2307/1357278.

Yaşin, D., Kaynak, G., Baytaroğlu, F., Şentürk, R.E., Çakan, Z., Torpil, S....&

Dervişoğlu, N. (2019). Tepebağ Höyük 2017 yılı kazı çalışmaları. Kazı

Sonuçları Toplantısı, 40(1), 531-552.

Yener, A. (1983). The Production, Exchange and Utilization of Silver and Lead

Metals in Ancient Anatolia: A Source Identification Project. Anatolica, 10, 1-15.

110 Retrieved from

https://www.academia.edu/1580641/The_Production_Exchange_and_Utilization_

of_Silver_and_Lead_Metals_in_Ancient_Anatolia_Anatolica_X_1983.

Yener, A. (1995). Swords, armor, and figurines: A metalliferous view from the

central Taurus, The Biblical Archaeologist, 58(2), 101-107. doi:

10.2307/3210481.

Yener, A. (2000). The domestication of metals: The rise of complex metal

industries in Anatolia. Leiden: Brill.

111

FIGURES

Figure 1: Map of Plain Cilicia with the archaeological sites and Phoenician inscriptions mentioned in the text (adapted from Wikimedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Near_East_topographic_map-blank.svg) 112

Table 46: NVl 3. Table 47: NVl 4. Table 48: NVl 5.6. Phoenician inscription Phoenician inscription Phoenician inscription (Phu/ A III) (Phu/ A II) (Phu/ A I)

Table 49: NVl 3-6. Phoenician inscriptions (Phu/ AI-III).

Figure 2: Phoenician inscriptions on stone slabs at the north gate of Karatepe (Çambel & Özyar, 2003: Table 46,47, 48,49).

113

Figure 3: The monument of Storm God Tarhunza at Çineköy, with Phoenician inscription (Yılmaz Kilim-https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=71414466)

114

Figure 4: Side view of basalt portal sphinx at Karatepe-Aslantaş (Çambel & Özyar 2003: Table 35).

Figure 5: Human-headed ivory sphinx from Arslan Tash (Fontan, 2014: 155, fig. 51d)

115

Figure 6: Map of Cilician road system with a focus on Plain Cilicia (adapted from Forlanini, 2013: 2, fig. 1)

116

Figure 7: Bronze-Iron age harbors of the east Mediterranean (Knapp & Demesticha, 2017: xvi, map 1c)

117

Figure 8: Map of Assyrian Kāru network (Yamada, 2005: 76)

118 Figure 9: Map of Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions from the 9th to the 7th century B.C. (Röllig, 1992: 99, fig.12).

119